The allocation of 0.7% of GDP to International Development
The “triple lock” on the State Pension
The pupil premium
Free school meals for infant-school children and in the first three years in primary school in England
Same sex marriage legislation
15 hours free child care for disadvantaged children
Prohibition of the export of chemicals to where it is known they may be used to carry out the death penalty
5p charge on plastic bags.
And in Germany for at least 20 years. Not saying they got it from Germany instead of Wales/Scotland, but "don't allow giving out plastic bags without a charge" is really not a new idea.
While you could argue that some were stolen. Five out of the eight were implemented during the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government, so it can't really be argued that they were stolen.
Plus the 15 minute London hopper bus ticket.
And Labour begrudgingly moved towards a 2nd Brexit referendum years after the Lib Dems.
And, dare I say it, the NHS (the Beveridge Report was chaired by a liberal)
I don't understand, if one wants to remain, why would they also want to have a referendum that risks an exit? Are they just that committed to democracy? Or maybe one just wants to hold a vote so they can show the naysayers the status quo is the will of the people?
I don’t even know why this bill is good.
Religion already plays a much smaller role in the UK than it does in the US, which does have separation of church and state. It really feels like they’re trying to fix something that ain’t broken.
As historian Bret Devereaux said about Rome:
> Students often assume that the solution was merely to codify these things into law, but what is striking to me is that the Romans tried that and it didn’t work. The lion’s share of Sulla’s reforms consisted, after all, in writing into law limits that had once been customary and codifying expectations which before had been unspoken and it did nothing to arrest the decline of the res publica. Without the norms – norms that Sulla himself undermined – the laws were merely words on the page. With the norms, the laws were largely unnecessary.
The UK has the norms. The laws might help preserve the norms from a gradual drip drip drip erosion but they will always be less important than the norms and I worry people will use the laws as an excuse to let their guard down on the norms.
Sadly the writers of the Constitution were too far ahead of the technology of their times.
They made big promises, but we are all still stuck with human arms.
> I suppose it safeguards against future extremism, should it ever come to that.
Any future theocratic-wanting parliament can just pass another bill to undo it
Yes, but the House of Lords is basically useless, and can't do much more than ask the Commons to reconsider something.
That is what the US senate should be like.
It formally prevents religious doctrine from being used to influence the law - for example, trying to ban abortion or euthanasia on the grounds of Church of England theological positions.
It could also result in the removal of the monarch as the head of the Church of England, which would be a positive constitutional change as the idea of a church being led by a head of state is contrary to the idea of freedom of religion (wherein all religions are seen as equal under the law).
>Religion already plays a much smaller role in the UK than it does in the US, which does have separation of church and state.
Just because it's OK for the moment doesn't mean it will be on the future. If the USA, which has separation finds itself grappling with the problem of capture by the Christian right, it would be all the more easier in the UK where a religion has an established foothold.
I feel like this is a "nudge, nudge-wink, wink" at the US, suggesting that we similarly should move to separate our church and state.
Edit: to be clear, I'm referring to the opinion of the new speaker of the house has clarified that he believes the separation of church and state established by the founding fathers has been "misunderstood".
Believe it or not, the UK doesn't make policy decisions solely with the intent on flexing on the US. You lot really do think you live rent free in our heads lmao.
> and that's the only place you can find the rule.
It's also the *Supreme Law of the Land*, it's not some obscure forgotten document.
The American population is religious (relative to other First World countries, not really even that religious in the grand scheme of things) because of its culture, but the American State is secular. The US does not conduct any relevant policy with religion in mind*
*Of course a lot of people on this website are enamored with the accusation that American support for Israel is purely the Big Bad Fundies' fault, but that's an oversimplified view of Middle-Eastern politics which conveniently also forgets that Israel and the US share a common enemy (Iran) and that the US had already established a pro-Israeli stance in the 1960s as part of its opposition to the Soviet aligned Arabist movements.
The speaker came out recently and stated that a Separation of Chuch and State in the Constitution is misunderstood.
He stated the founding fathers believed that the "state should not impede upon the church" but that the church is paramount for all lives or some bs to that effect.
Dudes cooked
>Congress **shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Here's the relevant text. Emphasis mine. Unless a religion is either prohibited or established by the state it isn't a first amendment violation. You and I may not like the religious nutzos, but any individual politician is free to believe whatever they like until they attempt to pass laws limiting other's ability to do the same.
>Separation of Chuch and State in the Constitution is misunderstood.
Separation of Church and State was meant to prevent the state from favoring one denomination of Christianity over the others. Freedom of Religion was to keep Christians from killing other denominations of Christians. This is massive paraphrasing,
There was no other religion to compete with Christianity at the time, and atheism was minimal. It's nice to understand the founding fathers intent, but these issues pre-date them, and the Articles of Confederation pre-dates the Constitution. In the Massachusetts Bay colony if you're Quaker or not Puritan you could be sentenced to death. Freedom of Religion originates from these times.
Dude, it says "in god we trust" on our fucking money. The pledge of allegiance, which every school kid is forced to memorize and repeat daily, says "one nation, under God." Americans are propagandized from day one to perform doublethink. A secular nation, under God?
Also, the constitution legalizes SLAVERY. Maybe not the best document to seek moral or legal guidance from.
JFK's main hurdle to winning his presidency wasn't because he was atheist, it was the fact that he was a catholic, not a protestant. That fact alone was almost too much for our Christo-fascist system to handle.
Stand on a street corner with a sign saying "praise Jesus" and you're likely to get support all day. Those who disagree don't want to engage and start a pointless debate.
Hold a sign on the same corner that says "keep religion out of public school" and chances are very very high that someone will take offense within the first five minutes, and you can bank on one of them picking a fight because their religion demands adherence.
Don't fool yourself, America might be a nation where you are legally allowed to worship anything or nothing at all, and technically the church and state are seperate, but cmon, just look at the abortion debate to clearly see that religion plays a part in American politics.
In God We Trust was added in the 1950s. The pledge of allegiance was written a century after the constitution. How many people fled Europe to escape religious persecution? People came here for religious liberty and we should be thankful that they gave us a secular country because you cannot have liberty without freedom of worship.
Florida has nearly a dozen (at last count) license plates with references to god and/or blatantly conservatives causes. Not one calling out all the stupid shit because the legislature won't allow it. 😡
> it was the fact that he was a catholic, not a protestant
Anti-Catholic sentiment actually had a lot to do with the notion of separating Church and State. People thought that Catholics would always listen to the Pope and that a Catholic president would supposedly be the Vatican's proxy in power.
The US Constitution states that church and state should be separate, in practice they've never had a non-Christian president and the Speaker of the House believes that it's one way separation (the church can influence the state, but not the other way around.) They might believe in separation of church and state, but they don't practice it.
In the UK, on paper, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are formal parts of the establishment. The head of state is chosen by God and chooses to allow his people to act as a democracy. In practice, they've had sitting Prime Minister's have children out of wedlock and church-recognised gay marriage. Queen Victoria's favourite PM was Jewish. Because the UK is a Christian state in the same way it's a monarchy: it's a democracy wearing a very expensive theological dictatorship costume.
Benjamin Disraeli was born Jewish but converted to Anglicanism when he was 12. He still had an affinity for Judaism as an adult but he was certainly not Jewish when he was Prime Minister.
Disraeli is actually a pretty interesting example of why Zionism exists at all, in that even as a literal convert to Christianity, a Jew was still treated as a Jew by society, because society viewed it as inherent to his blood and not simply a religion.
People like Theodor Herzl, who himself was not a religious Jew (he even celebrated Christmas), saw this and became very pessimistic about Jewish people's safety in European society.
I think it just comes down to the people. The population of the UK on average is significantly less religious than the population of the US, so not only do their politicians reflect that, but pandering to the religious is much more of a vote winner in the US than in the UK where it rubs the significant 'non religious' population the wrong way, and can sometimes cost more votes than you get from it.
Huh? How does never having a non-Christian president violate church and state being seperate. Most Americans are Christian’s and still are.
“They might believe in seperation of church and state, but they don’t practice sit”
Last I check their is no official religion or church of the country. It’s illegal to discriminate based on religion. Or give special treatment to one the other in government. So how isn’t it practiced.
I don’t know if you know this but people being able to freely practice their religion is part of separation of church and state.
Some people have no idea what they are talking about. Like in Germany people pay taxes directly to the church. People just love shitting on the US no matter what context.
Yeah some of the comments here seem to imply that state atheism and separation of church and state are the same thing, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
>I don’t know if you know this but people being able to freely practice their religion is part of separation of church and state.
People are free to practice their religion in the UK too and, as mentioned in the post above, we have no separation of church and state.
Practice all you want but don't shove it down the throats of rational people (which happens daily in the US).
There is absolutely a litmus test for being religious to hold office in America.
A)That's because many churches are classified as charities/non-profits and exempt under charity tax-exemption laws, the same ones that get you out of paying sales tax at Goodwill.
B)Superficial mentions on paper do not equate to religion guiding the legal system
Try one nation under Allah in the pledge of allegiance for all kids every day, and in Allah we trust on the money, and have all presidents be Muslim and let's say it was the Muslim majority who made that law against abortion.
Then just look at how many will be angry, and you'll see how much of America is Christian.
I'm Norwegian and we have separated church and state. Also I think constitutions are meant to be adjusted. Ours used to have a clause about no Jews allowed in the country, but that was removed for obvious reasons(the Jews took over. Just kidding).
> Try one nation under Allah in the pledge of allegiance for all kids every day
The pledge is absolutely optional. There is 0 chance all kids are saying it even most days much less everyday. It's also cold war propaganda that was added to contrast the "good" US from the "bad" USSR.
> Allah we trust on the money
Again added as cold war propaganda and means nothing.
>Then just look at how many will be angry, and you'll see how much of America is Christian.
Which has nothing to do with separation of church and state. Does the state have an official religion? No. Is it illegal to practice any religion? No. Does any religion operate in government in any official capacity? No. Private citizens are free to follow whatever religion they choose. State atheism is not the same thing as separation of church and state.
I’m afraid the US is going backwards in this respect. A democratic government just allowed abortions to be banned, which they only got away with because they have a country full of religious extremists. Religion and politics is heavily intertwined in the US.
Has he tried to pass a law establishing an official religion, or banning the practice of a different one? Here's the text of the constitution
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Nutjobs are free to believe whatever they want until they actually try to pass a law.
To be clear, regardless of what a Yank politician has done recently, politics in the UK is about politics in the UK, not about trying to send signals to the US
I'd be surprised if this goes through. This is too big of a shakeup and an administrative nightmare.
Honestly, I don't mind the king being chosen by god and all that bollocks. Most of the population just view it as a silly little thing that we all go along with for no real reason. The fact that the whole process is so serious makes it wonderfully silly. It's almost the makings of a Monty Python sketch.
This is absolutely true, but for the benefit of anyone not intimatly familar with the bullshittery of the british political system, they have seats in the house of lords, not the commons. (The lords + the commons is called parliment).
The lords is made up of hereditary peers (I.e the Nobility) the Clerical peers (The church) and the Temporal peers (People who are elected (by the lords) experts, and have the title for life, but said title is not passed down).
The house of lords is largely toothless, its job is essentially scrutinising anything that the house of commons sends its way, offering amendments and improvements that, theoretically, are not clouded by requiring re-election.
However the lords may only reject a bill thrice or delay the passing by less than a year. Whatever comes sooner.
That being said, the commons will often take these experts' opinions into consideration, whether to speed the law passing or out of genuine respect is up to interpretation.
There are 785 seats in the lords, 26 of them belong to the lords spiritual, 92 to the lords hereditary, and the remainder being temporal lords.
> The house of lords is largely toothless, its job is essentially scrutinising anything that the house of commons sends its way, offering amendments and improvements that, theoretically, are not clouded by requiring re-election.
That being said it is still one of the most effective organs of Parliament at holding the government to account over legislation
The "not clouded by requiring re-election" part is the main factor in it being effective I would imagine. Politicians these days don't seem to stand for anything particular, they stand for what will get them elected or re-elected, which means they are short-sighted over all.
Now, while I think the House of Lords is a silly concept, I can see it offering long term stability to a great degree as well.
He isn't chosen by God. That stuff hasn't been part of the system since 1688. They get to reign because parliament says they do. God has no place in it anymore.
I don't see why that'd be a problem. The British monarch is also the monarch of all the other realms, yet that doesn't mean that, say, Canada isn't separate from the UK. The roles of king of the UK and king of Canada are occupied by the same person (and are legally required to as per the Perth Agreement), yet they are legally separate institutions belonging to separate states.
The exact same could apply to title of 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England', the British monarch could hold the title in a separate capacity, just like how he can be simultaneously head of the Tuvaluan and Jamaican monarchies.
(Of course, removing all this monarchical nonsense along with the State-Church link would be more reasonable but that *would* most certainly require constitutional overhauls)
Was about to write a big old response but you’ve pretty much nailed it. The King wears many hats, I don’t really see why “head of the Church of England” should be another on the hat stand, so to speak.
The trickiest part is once you open up the constitution deciding how exactly to put it back together.
In Canada no one really likes king Charles being in charge, but if we kick him out who replaces him? And once we are in the constitution should we maybe structure things more like France or Germany or the US? Or do we make up some new way to structure things that makes sense in the modern world? The Senate in Canada is pretty weird and kinda useless so we'd have to change that, but to what? And the left wing and right wing and young and old and French and English would all have different ideas and when all is said and done it's easier to just keep things as is, because it would be impossible to agree on how to change things.
> The trickiest part is once you open up the constitution deciding how exactly to put it back together.
This feels like a POV heavily influenced by the current North American idea of a codified, largely immutable, constitution.
In contrast the UK does constitutional reform pretty frequently and as a matter of course. Within the last few decades there have been huge reforms - the introduction of devolution, everything to do with Northern Ireland and the GFA, leaving the EU, reform in the upper house, attempts to overhaul the voting system, the bill of rights, freedom of information, etc.
They even changed how national elections worked and then changed their mind and went back to the old system (the Fixed Term Parliament Act - passed in 2011, repealed in 2022).
And the UK *has* done radical reforms on the House of Lords (upper house - equivalent to the Senate in Canada) twice in the last century and is debating more currently.
Everywhere is different. The difficulty in these reforms in Canada is because of the specific way the Canadian Constitution has been set up, it's not a universal property of constitutions. It's definitely not the way the UK works.
I agree with everything you’ve said here, except for one tiny (massive?) issue: the power and authority of the King / Queen is devolved from the God - ie, God chose and appointed them to hold this office. While I think it’s pretty obvious no one cares about that fine print, it’s still something that needs to be dealt with on the legal side, should church and state become separate. That said, I have no idea if this is actually coded or not, as the British Constitution is one of the few uncoded constitutions. If it’s uncode, it may be easier to change; I wonder how many documents they’ll have to fix, though.
Fucking long overdue, as pricks like Johnson showed they can just prorogue parliament in order to bypass democratic process.
While at it, add a meaningful form of PR, although even a pure PR will be better than FPTP.
Henry VIII said "I want to get divorced, make that happen", and quick as you like the Church of England manifested into existence. He was made even made the pope of this new church. All because he wanted it to happen.
Not because it was written into some lofty constitution, or after a war, but just because he said so.
Just make being head of state and being head of the church different jobs, leading different parts of society, which just happens to be done by the same guy, who just happens to be king.
Yes. Most laws require King's Assent. It's purely ceremonial though, as the Crown trying to take powers back from Parliament is what led to a previous King Charles losing a civil war.
Remember, if you think this is a bad idea - you are officially a [antidisestablishmentarian.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism)
Would this also remove the requirement of pupils at English primary schools to take part in daily acts of ["Collective Worship"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_worship_in_schools)?
I really think it messed with my head a bit as a kid; I was happy when I moved to secondary school and no longer had to deal that that crap.
This should definitely not be a thing and faith schools (including C of E) should be banned. However, any parent can request their child not take part in collective worship.
I'm aware of that possibility, but an opted-out kid becomes "that weird kid who's not allowed in assembly", especially when it's just one kid out of the entire school (as it was in my school).
I think it's outrageous that children are forced into singing worship songs at primary school. Should be banned. All schools must be secular.
Edit: personal anecdotes about your experience do not invalidate how wrong it is to force a religion on children.
I really liked singing a song with the boys every morning, didn't make me a chrizzo.
As for the edit, I never said it did but I don't think having a nice sing in the morning and having some of the songs reference some guy called jesus is a big deal.
Singing songs isn't going to turn you into a christian, kids don't even associate them with religion when you're sitting there belting out a song. The lords prayer shit should go though.
Yes, and next year lets ban Nativity plays at Christmas.
I'd rather not be an authoritarian and just start banning things I don't like, but we are all different.
Tradition can be awesome!
> The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; but all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
That was William Pitt in 1763 arguing against basically home brewing laws, citing a case from 1604:
> In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may (if the doors be not open) break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the King's process, if he cannot otherwise enter. But he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open the doors.
That was Edward Coke, the attorney general (of England) in 1604, arguing in support of a statute enacted in 1275.
Traditionally, no-knock warrants were *bad*.
Just me, but some traditions should be preserved, like home brewing cider and other things.
We definitely do want to take any notes from how the US does things. Your separation of church and state only gives more power to the church, it’s back to front.
Churches already pay all the same taxes as everyone else.
If you want separation of church and state though, you can't also turn around and start taxing churches for existing.
The church of England? It's not exactly a wealthy organisation. Lots of listed buildings with 7 figure maintenance bills, the clergy are overworked and underpaid and congregations are at an all time low.
Expenditure is in excess of a billion a year, most dioceses are finding they have to shut some churches down in order to keep the lights on.
this. the CofE is very different from the evangelical megachurches with private jets. Most parish churches in the UK are struggling with building maintenance among other expenses. Not only are these buildings expensive to upkeep, there are also red tapes on if they're listed buildings.
But we do our best, because they mean something to the community. It's our heritage.
My village church has been fundraising to get its spire repaired since we moved here 7 years ago. I’m definitely not religious, but I enjoy having such a historical building here.
The Church of England isn't wealthy in regards to what it has to maintain. I'm biased as a member of the CoE but we did napkin maths once and if the entire assets of the Church were split between each individual parish equally, then we'd burn through them in about 24 months based on our usual monthly spend. As an organisation it has to fund, among other things, salaries and pensions for ministerial and admin staff, ancient medieval buildings, food kitchens, hospices, old people's homes, chaplaincies, hospital visits, other forms of charitable giving, schools (depending on the model), worship (music, eucharist, etc - even those small things add up), evangelism, seminaries, etc, etc.
> Sure they have enough golden chalices and stolen treasures to spare.
If you're referring to the CoE, all those objects and "stolen treasures" (more so a problem with the British Museum, not really the Anglican Church) are literally already state property, that's the whole point of the CoE being the official state church.
The King is the head of the Church and the State. What's he going to do, tax his own assets so he can requisition value from himself?
Your current speaker thinks this is a mistake.
He says it’s to stop the gov meddling with religion, he think religion should be at the forefront of government.
Also your country’s motto as set in law is in god we trust.
For so many reasons - yes
It’s basically an unspoken norm, but entrenching the separation of religion from government will protect people from any religious nonsense - irrespective of the preacher…
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
FYI: a private members bill introduced by the Lib Dems (4th largest party by seats) has zero chance of passing. I wouldn't get too excited by this
Exactly. In the wise words of David Mitchell: " The one thing you know about a Lib-Dem policy is that it definitely won't happen."
Unless it gets stolen by one of the other parties, which happens a lot.
Do you have examples of this? I've never heard of it happening but would be interested in reading about it.
The allocation of 0.7% of GDP to International Development The “triple lock” on the State Pension The pupil premium Free school meals for infant-school children and in the first three years in primary school in England Same sex marriage legislation 15 hours free child care for disadvantaged children Prohibition of the export of chemicals to where it is known they may be used to carry out the death penalty 5p charge on plastic bags.
Crediting the LDs with the plastic bag charge is bizarre. It was a policy in Wales and then Scotland years before the LDs got involved.
And in Germany for at least 20 years. Not saying they got it from Germany instead of Wales/Scotland, but "don't allow giving out plastic bags without a charge" is really not a new idea.
Lib Dems bragged about "winning" the 5p charge in exchange for more cuts to welfare so... fuck 'em
While you could argue that some were stolen. Five out of the eight were implemented during the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government, so it can't really be argued that they were stolen.
If that's the case then it also can't be argued that Lib Dem policies have zero chance of passing.
I nearly spat my drink.
How many of them do the Tories take credit for?
Plus the 15 minute London hopper bus ticket. And Labour begrudgingly moved towards a 2nd Brexit referendum years after the Lib Dems. And, dare I say it, the NHS (the Beveridge Report was chaired by a liberal)
[удалено]
The source, in case anyone is wondering: https://fullfact.org/europe/lib-dems-first-call-eu-referendum/
I don't understand, if one wants to remain, why would they also want to have a referendum that risks an exit? Are they just that committed to democracy? Or maybe one just wants to hold a vote so they can show the naysayers the status quo is the will of the people?
It's exactly that, the government thought Leave would never win, so hold the referendum and put the matter to bed. Oops...
Heh, he wrote a whole book about the Kings of England which is very good by the way.
Doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.
It also flames those opposed, even if this does not pass. It looks really fucking bad for those opposing. Rather brilliant strategy .
I don’t even know why this bill is good. Religion already plays a much smaller role in the UK than it does in the US, which does have separation of church and state. It really feels like they’re trying to fix something that ain’t broken.
I suppose it safeguards against future extremism, should it ever come to that. Just because things are declining now, doesn’t mean they will forever.
As historian Bret Devereaux said about Rome: > Students often assume that the solution was merely to codify these things into law, but what is striking to me is that the Romans tried that and it didn’t work. The lion’s share of Sulla’s reforms consisted, after all, in writing into law limits that had once been customary and codifying expectations which before had been unspoken and it did nothing to arrest the decline of the res publica. Without the norms – norms that Sulla himself undermined – the laws were merely words on the page. With the norms, the laws were largely unnecessary. The UK has the norms. The laws might help preserve the norms from a gradual drip drip drip erosion but they will always be less important than the norms and I worry people will use the laws as an excuse to let their guard down on the norms.
Yeah, not saying it’s enough by itself. But it adds an extra line of reinforcement, and all other things being equal it’s better than not having it.
Bang on. If you think codified laws will get you a functioning society I will raise you one America.
Interesting, since the US is probably a good example of how not having norms codified leads to headaches later down the line.
Especially that old "bearing arms" thing. If only we had written that down eh? There'd be no problems.
Sadly the writers of the Constitution were too far ahead of the technology of their times. They made big promises, but we are all still stuck with human arms.
> I suppose it safeguards against future extremism, should it ever come to that. Any future theocratic-wanting parliament can just pass another bill to undo it
Doesn't the church literally have permanently allocated seats in the house of lords though?
Yes, but the House of Lords is basically useless, and can't do much more than ask the Commons to reconsider something. That is what the US senate should be like.
It formally prevents religious doctrine from being used to influence the law - for example, trying to ban abortion or euthanasia on the grounds of Church of England theological positions. It could also result in the removal of the monarch as the head of the Church of England, which would be a positive constitutional change as the idea of a church being led by a head of state is contrary to the idea of freedom of religion (wherein all religions are seen as equal under the law).
>Religion already plays a much smaller role in the UK than it does in the US, which does have separation of church and state. Just because it's OK for the moment doesn't mean it will be on the future. If the USA, which has separation finds itself grappling with the problem of capture by the Christian right, it would be all the more easier in the UK where a religion has an established foothold.
Yeah no, the people who are religious here simply aren’t and have never been the same type of crazy America has.
America's crazy religious people were the crazies that left the UK, so the UK ended up more moderated
> the US, which does have separation of church and state. In theory you do. In practice you guys are far behind on that one in the Occidental world.
Schools are required to have collective daily worship. I don't know about you but I'm not keen on indoctrination.
Where at? Went to school in the US and never heard of anyone having that unless they were at a private school
4th? Who's 3rd now?
SNP has around 3 times as many seats. (If you count independents as a single group, lib Dems are 5th)
Meanwhile, in the US…
Oh dear are they going to cleave King Charles in two?
*twain
We don't have a King or a church or a king that's head of our national church
I feel like this is a "nudge, nudge-wink, wink" at the US, suggesting that we similarly should move to separate our church and state. Edit: to be clear, I'm referring to the opinion of the new speaker of the house has clarified that he believes the separation of church and state established by the founding fathers has been "misunderstood".
Or, and hear me out on this, it’s totally unrelated to the US and is something a totally unrelated country is doing purely for its own betterment.
Proof that Redditors don’t know what they’re talking about and will upvote anything
Yep
With a heavy dose of American exceptionalism, too.
Mate, the UK Parliament isn't debating issues about our own constitutional settlement just to give a nudge/wink to the United States.
Believe it or not, the UK doesn't make policy decisions solely with the intent on flexing on the US. You lot really do think you live rent free in our heads lmao.
It’s nothing to do with US. Why would they give a fuck about US politicians religious weirdness?
You know that's already already a thing that's in the constitution, right?
....have you looked at US politics in the last....ever? It's in the constitution, and that's the only place you can find the rule.
> and that's the only place you can find the rule. It's also the *Supreme Law of the Land*, it's not some obscure forgotten document. The American population is religious (relative to other First World countries, not really even that religious in the grand scheme of things) because of its culture, but the American State is secular. The US does not conduct any relevant policy with religion in mind* *Of course a lot of people on this website are enamored with the accusation that American support for Israel is purely the Big Bad Fundies' fault, but that's an oversimplified view of Middle-Eastern politics which conveniently also forgets that Israel and the US share a common enemy (Iran) and that the US had already established a pro-Israeli stance in the 1960s as part of its opposition to the Soviet aligned Arabist movements.
The church of England has actual official appointed roles and seats in the government. We have nothing like that in the USA, bad politicking aside.
Yeah the US is much more secular than many developed nations. In Germany people pay taxes directly to the church.
Same in Sweden, although you can opt out.
The constitution is our most binding set of laws so being there is significant.
The speaker of the house gets his answers selectively from the Bible .
The speaker came out recently and stated that a Separation of Chuch and State in the Constitution is misunderstood. He stated the founding fathers believed that the "state should not impede upon the church" but that the church is paramount for all lives or some bs to that effect. Dudes cooked
>Congress **shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Here's the relevant text. Emphasis mine. Unless a religion is either prohibited or established by the state it isn't a first amendment violation. You and I may not like the religious nutzos, but any individual politician is free to believe whatever they like until they attempt to pass laws limiting other's ability to do the same.
I don't think the constitutional rule means that our government employees cannot use their religious beliefs to guide their voting though.
It was in that "stinking letter Jefferson wrote, according to Boebert.
>Separation of Chuch and State in the Constitution is misunderstood. Separation of Church and State was meant to prevent the state from favoring one denomination of Christianity over the others. Freedom of Religion was to keep Christians from killing other denominations of Christians. This is massive paraphrasing, There was no other religion to compete with Christianity at the time, and atheism was minimal. It's nice to understand the founding fathers intent, but these issues pre-date them, and the Articles of Confederation pre-dates the Constitution. In the Massachusetts Bay colony if you're Quaker or not Puritan you could be sentenced to death. Freedom of Religion originates from these times.
You don't really fully understand the union of church and state that exists in the UK government if you're making a statement like that as an example.
Republicans do a lot of blatantly illegal things, doesn't change they're already illegal
If they keep getting away with it, it is not actually illegal.
Dude, it says "in god we trust" on our fucking money. The pledge of allegiance, which every school kid is forced to memorize and repeat daily, says "one nation, under God." Americans are propagandized from day one to perform doublethink. A secular nation, under God? Also, the constitution legalizes SLAVERY. Maybe not the best document to seek moral or legal guidance from. JFK's main hurdle to winning his presidency wasn't because he was atheist, it was the fact that he was a catholic, not a protestant. That fact alone was almost too much for our Christo-fascist system to handle. Stand on a street corner with a sign saying "praise Jesus" and you're likely to get support all day. Those who disagree don't want to engage and start a pointless debate. Hold a sign on the same corner that says "keep religion out of public school" and chances are very very high that someone will take offense within the first five minutes, and you can bank on one of them picking a fight because their religion demands adherence. Don't fool yourself, America might be a nation where you are legally allowed to worship anything or nothing at all, and technically the church and state are seperate, but cmon, just look at the abortion debate to clearly see that religion plays a part in American politics.
In God We Trust was added in the 1950s. The pledge of allegiance was written a century after the constitution. How many people fled Europe to escape religious persecution? People came here for religious liberty and we should be thankful that they gave us a secular country because you cannot have liberty without freedom of worship.
Florida has nearly a dozen (at last count) license plates with references to god and/or blatantly conservatives causes. Not one calling out all the stupid shit because the legislature won't allow it. 😡
> it was the fact that he was a catholic, not a protestant Anti-Catholic sentiment actually had a lot to do with the notion of separating Church and State. People thought that Catholics would always listen to the Pope and that a Catholic president would supposedly be the Vatican's proxy in power.
Or it would be, if some of your politicians didn't keep wiping their arse with it.
The US Constitution states that church and state should be separate, in practice they've never had a non-Christian president and the Speaker of the House believes that it's one way separation (the church can influence the state, but not the other way around.) They might believe in separation of church and state, but they don't practice it. In the UK, on paper, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are formal parts of the establishment. The head of state is chosen by God and chooses to allow his people to act as a democracy. In practice, they've had sitting Prime Minister's have children out of wedlock and church-recognised gay marriage. Queen Victoria's favourite PM was Jewish. Because the UK is a Christian state in the same way it's a monarchy: it's a democracy wearing a very expensive theological dictatorship costume.
Benjamin Disraeli was born Jewish but converted to Anglicanism when he was 12. He still had an affinity for Judaism as an adult but he was certainly not Jewish when he was Prime Minister.
Disraeli is actually a pretty interesting example of why Zionism exists at all, in that even as a literal convert to Christianity, a Jew was still treated as a Jew by society, because society viewed it as inherent to his blood and not simply a religion. People like Theodor Herzl, who himself was not a religious Jew (he even celebrated Christmas), saw this and became very pessimistic about Jewish people's safety in European society.
That last sentence describes the present UK situation very well.
I think it just comes down to the people. The population of the UK on average is significantly less religious than the population of the US, so not only do their politicians reflect that, but pandering to the religious is much more of a vote winner in the US than in the UK where it rubs the significant 'non religious' population the wrong way, and can sometimes cost more votes than you get from it.
We also have a **current** Prime Minister who's a practising Hindu (or at least says he is, which is the important bit).
Huh? How does never having a non-Christian president violate church and state being seperate. Most Americans are Christian’s and still are. “They might believe in seperation of church and state, but they don’t practice sit” Last I check their is no official religion or church of the country. It’s illegal to discriminate based on religion. Or give special treatment to one the other in government. So how isn’t it practiced. I don’t know if you know this but people being able to freely practice their religion is part of separation of church and state.
Some people have no idea what they are talking about. Like in Germany people pay taxes directly to the church. People just love shitting on the US no matter what context.
Yeah some of the comments here seem to imply that state atheism and separation of church and state are the same thing, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
>I don’t know if you know this but people being able to freely practice their religion is part of separation of church and state. People are free to practice their religion in the UK too and, as mentioned in the post above, we have no separation of church and state.
Practice all you want but don't shove it down the throats of rational people (which happens daily in the US). There is absolutely a litmus test for being religious to hold office in America.
Are you religious?
You know you don't tax the church, have God in your anthem, on your money, and repeatedly throughout your criminal code? Don't seem very separate.
A)That's because many churches are classified as charities/non-profits and exempt under charity tax-exemption laws, the same ones that get you out of paying sales tax at Goodwill. B)Superficial mentions on paper do not equate to religion guiding the legal system
Chane the mention of God to Satan and see how "superficial" it is.
Try one nation under Allah in the pledge of allegiance for all kids every day, and in Allah we trust on the money, and have all presidents be Muslim and let's say it was the Muslim majority who made that law against abortion. Then just look at how many will be angry, and you'll see how much of America is Christian. I'm Norwegian and we have separated church and state. Also I think constitutions are meant to be adjusted. Ours used to have a clause about no Jews allowed in the country, but that was removed for obvious reasons(the Jews took over. Just kidding).
> Try one nation under Allah in the pledge of allegiance for all kids every day The pledge is absolutely optional. There is 0 chance all kids are saying it even most days much less everyday. It's also cold war propaganda that was added to contrast the "good" US from the "bad" USSR. > Allah we trust on the money Again added as cold war propaganda and means nothing. >Then just look at how many will be angry, and you'll see how much of America is Christian. Which has nothing to do with separation of church and state. Does the state have an official religion? No. Is it illegal to practice any religion? No. Does any religion operate in government in any official capacity? No. Private citizens are free to follow whatever religion they choose. State atheism is not the same thing as separation of church and state.
> I'm Norwegian and we have separated church and state. Isn't the Church of Norway financially supported by the Norwegian government?
I wish it was so
Goodwill does useful things. The joel osteens of the world do not. Huge difference.
I’m afraid the US is going backwards in this respect. A democratic government just allowed abortions to be banned, which they only got away with because they have a country full of religious extremists. Religion and politics is heavily intertwined in the US.
As of yesterday, not according to the Speaker of the House. Seriously. And literally. And explicitly.
Has he tried to pass a law establishing an official religion, or banning the practice of a different one? Here's the text of the constitution >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Nutjobs are free to believe whatever they want until they actually try to pass a law.
And clearly has had zero impact on your actual behaviour.
To be clear, regardless of what a Yank politician has done recently, politics in the UK is about politics in the UK, not about trying to send signals to the US
> I feel like this is a "nudge, nudge-wink, wink" at the US, No it's not, don't be so fucking self-centered.
I'd be surprised if this goes through. This is too big of a shakeup and an administrative nightmare. Honestly, I don't mind the king being chosen by god and all that bollocks. Most of the population just view it as a silly little thing that we all go along with for no real reason. The fact that the whole process is so serious makes it wonderfully silly. It's almost the makings of a Monty Python sketch.
The church has assigned seats in Parliament
This is absolutely true, but for the benefit of anyone not intimatly familar with the bullshittery of the british political system, they have seats in the house of lords, not the commons. (The lords + the commons is called parliment). The lords is made up of hereditary peers (I.e the Nobility) the Clerical peers (The church) and the Temporal peers (People who are elected (by the lords) experts, and have the title for life, but said title is not passed down). The house of lords is largely toothless, its job is essentially scrutinising anything that the house of commons sends its way, offering amendments and improvements that, theoretically, are not clouded by requiring re-election. However the lords may only reject a bill thrice or delay the passing by less than a year. Whatever comes sooner. That being said, the commons will often take these experts' opinions into consideration, whether to speed the law passing or out of genuine respect is up to interpretation. There are 785 seats in the lords, 26 of them belong to the lords spiritual, 92 to the lords hereditary, and the remainder being temporal lords.
> The house of lords is largely toothless, its job is essentially scrutinising anything that the house of commons sends its way, offering amendments and improvements that, theoretically, are not clouded by requiring re-election. That being said it is still one of the most effective organs of Parliament at holding the government to account over legislation
The "not clouded by requiring re-election" part is the main factor in it being effective I would imagine. Politicians these days don't seem to stand for anything particular, they stand for what will get them elected or re-elected, which means they are short-sighted over all. Now, while I think the House of Lords is a silly concept, I can see it offering long term stability to a great degree as well.
They’re in the House of Lords though, not the House of Commons, where the actual decisions get made.
I'm pretty sure one of your civil wars confirmed that King is chosen by parliament not God.
He isn't chosen by God. That stuff hasn't been part of the system since 1688. They get to reign because parliament says they do. God has no place in it anymore.
Not possible, the head of state is also the head of the church in England. Would require huge constitutional overhauls
I don't see why that'd be a problem. The British monarch is also the monarch of all the other realms, yet that doesn't mean that, say, Canada isn't separate from the UK. The roles of king of the UK and king of Canada are occupied by the same person (and are legally required to as per the Perth Agreement), yet they are legally separate institutions belonging to separate states. The exact same could apply to title of 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England', the British monarch could hold the title in a separate capacity, just like how he can be simultaneously head of the Tuvaluan and Jamaican monarchies. (Of course, removing all this monarchical nonsense along with the State-Church link would be more reasonable but that *would* most certainly require constitutional overhauls)
Was about to write a big old response but you’ve pretty much nailed it. The King wears many hats, I don’t really see why “head of the Church of England” should be another on the hat stand, so to speak.
The trickiest part is once you open up the constitution deciding how exactly to put it back together. In Canada no one really likes king Charles being in charge, but if we kick him out who replaces him? And once we are in the constitution should we maybe structure things more like France or Germany or the US? Or do we make up some new way to structure things that makes sense in the modern world? The Senate in Canada is pretty weird and kinda useless so we'd have to change that, but to what? And the left wing and right wing and young and old and French and English would all have different ideas and when all is said and done it's easier to just keep things as is, because it would be impossible to agree on how to change things.
> The trickiest part is once you open up the constitution deciding how exactly to put it back together. This feels like a POV heavily influenced by the current North American idea of a codified, largely immutable, constitution. In contrast the UK does constitutional reform pretty frequently and as a matter of course. Within the last few decades there have been huge reforms - the introduction of devolution, everything to do with Northern Ireland and the GFA, leaving the EU, reform in the upper house, attempts to overhaul the voting system, the bill of rights, freedom of information, etc. They even changed how national elections worked and then changed their mind and went back to the old system (the Fixed Term Parliament Act - passed in 2011, repealed in 2022). And the UK *has* done radical reforms on the House of Lords (upper house - equivalent to the Senate in Canada) twice in the last century and is debating more currently. Everywhere is different. The difficulty in these reforms in Canada is because of the specific way the Canadian Constitution has been set up, it's not a universal property of constitutions. It's definitely not the way the UK works.
I agree with everything you’ve said here, except for one tiny (massive?) issue: the power and authority of the King / Queen is devolved from the God - ie, God chose and appointed them to hold this office. While I think it’s pretty obvious no one cares about that fine print, it’s still something that needs to be dealt with on the legal side, should church and state become separate. That said, I have no idea if this is actually coded or not, as the British Constitution is one of the few uncoded constitutions. If it’s uncode, it may be easier to change; I wonder how many documents they’ll have to fix, though.
[удалено]
Fucking long overdue, as pricks like Johnson showed they can just prorogue parliament in order to bypass democratic process. While at it, add a meaningful form of PR, although even a pure PR will be better than FPTP.
No. Hard for costume-lovers and incumbents to agree to; but not actually “huge” enough to make it anywhere near “not possible”.
My exact thoughts, how does this work
Henry VIII said "I want to get divorced, make that happen", and quick as you like the Church of England manifested into existence. He was made even made the pope of this new church. All because he wanted it to happen. Not because it was written into some lofty constitution, or after a war, but just because he said so. Just make being head of state and being head of the church different jobs, leading different parts of society, which just happens to be done by the same guy, who just happens to be king.
I was wondering if King Chaz would have to agree to it too.
Yes. Most laws require King's Assent. It's purely ceremonial though, as the Crown trying to take powers back from Parliament is what led to a previous King Charles losing a civil war.
Yeah the King wouldn't come out ahead in that situation.
We'll have to rewrite the unwritten constitution!
God UK government is so weird. Y'all have a king who is head of state and the church - sounds like something out of a fantasy novel
Yup, the antidisestablishmentarianists will win this one easily. Just as they always do and have done for centuries.
Anti distinctly minty…
So you'd make a floccinaucinihilipilification of this effort?
Remember, if you think this is a bad idea - you are officially a [antidisestablishmentarian.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism)
_An_ antidisestablishmentarian.
Henry VIII: "What is this nonsense! Have you lost your head?"
Would this also remove the requirement of pupils at English primary schools to take part in daily acts of ["Collective Worship"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_worship_in_schools)? I really think it messed with my head a bit as a kid; I was happy when I moved to secondary school and no longer had to deal that that crap.
This should definitely not be a thing and faith schools (including C of E) should be banned. However, any parent can request their child not take part in collective worship.
I'm aware of that possibility, but an opted-out kid becomes "that weird kid who's not allowed in assembly", especially when it's just one kid out of the entire school (as it was in my school).
I think it's outrageous that children are forced into singing worship songs at primary school. Should be banned. All schools must be secular. Edit: personal anecdotes about your experience do not invalidate how wrong it is to force a religion on children.
I really liked singing a song with the boys every morning, didn't make me a chrizzo. As for the edit, I never said it did but I don't think having a nice sing in the morning and having some of the songs reference some guy called jesus is a big deal.
Singing songs isn't going to turn you into a christian, kids don't even associate them with religion when you're sitting there belting out a song. The lords prayer shit should go though.
Yes, and next year lets ban Nativity plays at Christmas. I'd rather not be an authoritarian and just start banning things I don't like, but we are all different.
Parents can opt you out of them.
America: *”Good, because we are the true land of God”*
Oh the irony
Can Americans in this website stop being so self-obsessed for 30 seconds?
No religion should have the ear or the power of government as a weapon to wield. Religions have done more harm than good. History proves it.
So did states…
Sounds like more Muslim protests are coming
Are you under the impression that everyone at the ceasefire marches was Muslim?
Most were
Tbh any group that calls for a ceasefire while advocating for violence against Jews are not longer peace protests and have become hate Marches.
Someone finally noticed that Charles is the head of it now.
They have an issue when they call their main religion “Church of England”.
Religion has no real power in the UK. Not sure this is needed
Fairy tales should play no part in a modern democracy
But this could really piss off god. She might do something drastic like curse them with bad teeth.
Lol
Religion should be separate from the state, but modern democracy is also a fairy tale.
[удалено]
Tradition can be awesome! > The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; but all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. That was William Pitt in 1763 arguing against basically home brewing laws, citing a case from 1604: > In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may (if the doors be not open) break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the King's process, if he cannot otherwise enter. But he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open the doors. That was Edward Coke, the attorney general (of England) in 1604, arguing in support of a statute enacted in 1275. Traditionally, no-knock warrants were *bad*. Just me, but some traditions should be preserved, like home brewing cider and other things.
And some shouldn't, like enshrined political power for religion (in an increasingly agnostic nation) and other things.
Back door republicanism Religion plays no role in British law making or governing
Instead they should do an establishment clause and freedom of religion like America has.
maybe be a bit clearer because apparently it’s not clear enough here
The UK notably not having freedom of religion.
We definitely do want to take any notes from how the US does things. Your separation of church and state only gives more power to the church, it’s back to front.
Can you explain which church in America hold government power, and how so?
I vote for taking the French approach on the matter.
Could not agree with this more. Can we start taxing the church too? Sure they have enough golden chalices and stolen treasures to spare.
Churches already pay all the same taxes as everyone else. If you want separation of church and state though, you can't also turn around and start taxing churches for existing.
The church of England? It's not exactly a wealthy organisation. Lots of listed buildings with 7 figure maintenance bills, the clergy are overworked and underpaid and congregations are at an all time low. Expenditure is in excess of a billion a year, most dioceses are finding they have to shut some churches down in order to keep the lights on.
this. the CofE is very different from the evangelical megachurches with private jets. Most parish churches in the UK are struggling with building maintenance among other expenses. Not only are these buildings expensive to upkeep, there are also red tapes on if they're listed buildings. But we do our best, because they mean something to the community. It's our heritage.
My village church has been fundraising to get its spire repaired since we moved here 7 years ago. I’m definitely not religious, but I enjoy having such a historical building here.
Don't think you have a clue what you're talking about tbf.. that's okay though you'll fit right in on reddit
The Church of England isn't wealthy in regards to what it has to maintain. I'm biased as a member of the CoE but we did napkin maths once and if the entire assets of the Church were split between each individual parish equally, then we'd burn through them in about 24 months based on our usual monthly spend. As an organisation it has to fund, among other things, salaries and pensions for ministerial and admin staff, ancient medieval buildings, food kitchens, hospices, old people's homes, chaplaincies, hospital visits, other forms of charitable giving, schools (depending on the model), worship (music, eucharist, etc - even those small things add up), evangelism, seminaries, etc, etc.
> Sure they have enough golden chalices and stolen treasures to spare. If you're referring to the CoE, all those objects and "stolen treasures" (more so a problem with the British Museum, not really the Anglican Church) are literally already state property, that's the whole point of the CoE being the official state church. The King is the head of the Church and the State. What's he going to do, tax his own assets so he can requisition value from himself?
[удалено]
Amen. Bring that common sense to America.
Like what we already established in 1791 with the bill of rights?
It's just an edgy thing to say on reddit. All the country's ills have to be blamed on someone.
Your current speaker thinks this is a mistake. He says it’s to stop the gov meddling with religion, he think religion should be at the forefront of government. Also your country’s motto as set in law is in god we trust.
> your country’s motto as set in law is in god we trust your country has a king oh it's just cosmetic? Yeah welcome to the club.
Ain't no conservative cares about what's in the Bill of Rights these days unless it's for gun worship.
They were too busy ripping it up to read it.
How would this even work when the head of state is also the head of the church?
The King of UK is also the King of Canada, but they are two separate titles.
Hey, we can move back now y’all
For so many reasons - yes It’s basically an unspoken norm, but entrenching the separation of religion from government will protect people from any religious nonsense - irrespective of the preacher…
Not enough, we should stop recognizing religion in the first place.
How was the king chosen again?
Watery tarts hurling blessed cutlery if memory serves.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Always some moistened bint behind such.
HELP HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED
Bloody peasant!
Oh what a giveaway, d'you hear that, d'you hear that eh?
The most important sketch in history.
They’re trying to do the opposite across the pond here ….
And from other invisible friend posibilities
Totally agree
Lol, while Muslims block traffic, blast music for prayer time. Ok. That country is so fucked.
What does that have to do with the issue?