|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disestablishment of C of E
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
Should the Church of England be disestablished?
Discuss.
Pixie, could you start the ball rolling on this difficult topic? My guess is that you will be agin it, but I may be wrong there. Are you an antidisestablishmentarian or not?
[ 06. September 2013, 22:26: Message edited by: would love to belong ]
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
There should be a public debate about disestablishment. I'm surprised that so little has been said about it, especially since criticising the CofE seems to be a national sport.
I tend to say I'm all for it, but if it really looked as if it were going to happen I'd be quite anxious. What I hope is that the CofE is quietly developing a plan of action so that if (when) disestablishment appears on the horizon the Church won't find itself in a total funk. That would be dreadful.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
No. People like being able to get married in the parish church they don't attend.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Should the Church of England be disestablished?
Discuss.
Pixie, could you start the ball rolling on this difficult topic? My guess is that you will be agin it, but I may be wrong there. Are you an antidisestablishmentarian or not?
Hosting
Using hostile diminutive nicknames for shipmates is a personal attack violating commandments 3 & 4 the only place on the ship where that is acceptable is Hell. Don't do it here.
/Hosting
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Off the top of my head, I think the Church of England should remain established because:
A: Without the concomitant requirement to be morally intelligible to secular society, I don't know how much progress liberal Anglicans would make. See the re-vote on woman bishops.
B: Disestablished, I doubt it would remain a single denomination. (Yes, I can see the implied contradiction between these two points.)
C: It's good for the country to hear voices of opposition which aren't compromised by wanting to get elected (however much they may be compromised by other things). An Anglican priest recently got arrested trespassing in protest at a airbase. That means something different with an established church than it would mean without it.
However, I can also see the arguments against establishment, and I think I may have previously used some of them myself.
[ 06. September 2013, 23:42: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Query - in the future, if our monarch was styled 'Defender of Faith' and not 'Defender of the Faith' (or indeed we had no monarch), would it be possible for there to be more than one established church?
I am not opposed to there being an established church, but I'm not especially comfortable with the lack of voice other churches get. Representatives of mainstream churches (and indeed other faiths) should be in the House of Lords, for example.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Query - in the future, if our monarch was styled 'Defender of Faith' and not 'Defender of the Faith' (or indeed we had no monarch), would it be possible for there to be more than one established church?
I am not opposed to there being an established church, but I'm not especially comfortable with the lack of voice other churches get. Representatives of mainstream churches (and indeed other faiths) should be in the House of Lords, for example.
IIRC there is already a second established church, the Church of Scotland. Other countries manage with multiple establishment (Finland, with Lutherans and Orthodox) and Germany with Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
If one is thinking of representation through the Lords, that can be done either non-systematically (chief rabbis, for example, usually get the ermine) or systematically-- although RC clerics are forbidden these days from accepting appointments. Certainly, prominent Methodists have received peerages and there is no reason why theologians or philosophers could not take seats-- this could be easily extended without waiting for HoL reforms.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Other countries manage with multiple establishment (Finland, with Lutherans and Orthodox) and Germany with Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
There is no established church in Germany. The German tax-collecting deal is simply something different. It is basically available to any (quasi-)religious community which can demonstrate that it (a) provides an institutional framework that is likely to last and (b) obeys the constitutional laws. Nine religious communities use this deal, including for example the German Jewish communities, whereas seventeen others could use it but do not, including for example the Salvation Army or the Society of Free Spirits.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
C: It's good for the country to hear voices of opposition which aren't compromised by wanting to get elected (however much they may be compromised by other things). An Anglican priest recently got arrested trespassing in protest at a airbase. That means something different with an established church than it would mean without it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't the whole point of having an established state religion that it's part of "the Establishment"? You know, insiders, not a "voice of opposition".
[ 07. September 2013, 02:05: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
IIRC there is already a second established church, the Church of Scotland. Other countries manage with multiple establishment (Finland, with Lutherans and Orthodox) and Germany with Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
Indeed, a good way to experiment with disestablishment would be to break the link in Scotland - where establishment did nothing at all to prevent splits and divisions in the C19.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
If I may be so bold as to quote myself on why having an established state religion is a bad idea:
quote:
The two options for an official state religion are either the state becomes obsessed with determining who is really an adherent and who is just saying so to garner benefits from the state (the Inquisitorial option) or the state religion eliminates dissent by becoming so fluffy, toothless, and content-free that there are no strenuous dissenters (the Anglican option).
In short, state-backed religion is bad for both the state and for religion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
C: It's good for the country to hear voices of opposition which aren't compromised by wanting to get elected (however much they may be compromised by other things). An Anglican priest recently got arrested trespassing in protest at a airbase. That means something different with an established church than it would mean without it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't the whole point of having an established state religion that it's part of "the Establishment"? You know, insiders, not a "voice of opposition".
The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
[ 07. September 2013, 03:59: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If I may be so bold as to quote myself on why having an established state religion is a bad idea:
quote:
The two options for an official state religion are either the state becomes obsessed with determining who is really an adherent and who is just saying so to garner benefits from the state (the Inquisitorial option) or the state religion eliminates dissent by becoming so fluffy, toothless, and content-free that there are no strenuous dissenters (the Anglican option).
In short, state-backed religion is bad for both the state and for religion.
Anglicanism as a coherent intellectual tradition begins with the acceptance of dissent, not attempts to crush it. It's flexible, not fluffy, and this is a strength, not a weakness.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism as a coherent intellectual tradition begins with the acceptance of dissent, not attempts to crush it.
No, Anglicanism begins with Henry VIII needing a new wife and breaking with the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure that a lot of what Hank8 did would qualify as "crushing dissent".
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's flexible, not fluffy, and this is a strength, not a weakness.
If dissent is so critical, why the insistence on having the government's seal of approval? And I'm pretty sure that there's more dissent outside the Anglican church than in it. For example, I doubt Anglican clergy can openly deny the divinity of Jesus (to pick one example) in the manner a rabbi or imam would.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism as a coherent intellectual tradition begins with the acceptance of dissent, not attempts to crush it.
No, Anglicanism begins with Henry VIII needing a new wife and breaking with the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure that a lot of what Hank8 did would qualify as "crushing dissent".
I said as a coherent intellectual tradition, I'm not talking about its origins, which are well known. The beginning of Anglicanism meaning something other than 'for Pope, read King' or opportunist wrecking is Elizabeth's time, when you could pay your money and take your choice. Excusing the abuses of power isn't much of a challenge or an achievement; establishing freedom of religion where none had existed is.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If dissent is so critical, why the insistence on having the government's seal of approval? And I'm pretty sure that there's more dissent outside the Anglican church than in it. For example, I doubt Anglican clergy can openly deny the divinity of Jesus (to pick one example) in the manner a rabbi or imam would.
Not a seal of approval; an opportunity to be heard at all. I'm not talking about theological dissent, I'm talking about real, political dissent which makes a difference to people's lives.
[ 07. September 2013, 05:27: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If dissent is so critical, why the insistence on having the government's seal of approval? And I'm pretty sure that there's more dissent outside the Anglican church than in it. For example, I doubt Anglican clergy can openly deny the divinity of Jesus (to pick one example) in the manner a rabbi or imam would.
Not a seal of approval; an opportunity to be heard at all. I'm not talking about theological dissent, I'm talking about real, political dissent which makes a difference to people's lives.
If there's no "opportunity to be heard at all" outside of Anglicanism, how is that not a government seal of approval? I have to be skeptical of anything billed as government approved political dissent.
And why not talk about theological dissent? A system which deliberately marginalizes rival religious beliefs is not one I'd call accepting of dissent.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If there's no "opportunity to be heard at all" outside of Anglicanism, how is that not a government seal of approval? I have to be skeptical of anything billed as government approved political dissent.
And why not talk about theological dissent? A system which deliberately marginalizes rival religious beliefs is not one I'd call accepting of dissent.
There's no opportunity for priests to be heard. Do you live in Britain?
Because theological dissent has absolutely no impact on the lives of 99.9% of English people. The Church of England, to the extent that it's a religious organisation, is no less marginalised than any other 'system', and it doesn't do any marginalising. As a element of the Establishment, it gets media coverage, as something happening in 'public life'. This means priests can make meaningful political interventions. Without that status, there would be no avowedly Christian perspective in public life. It's as simple as that. The people in Britain who are really serious about opposing the established status aren't trying to bring more religions 'in', they're trying to shut all religions out.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
I think the real reason is that the politicians have looked at the knock on effect on all kinds of other legislation and thought 'OMG this is going to keep us sitting on allnighters for years' Lets leave it for another parliament to sort out.'
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As an American firmly in the no establishment of religion camp, it seems there are two parts to this.
What does disestablishment do to the Church?
What does not having an established religion do to the country?
I'll leave the first to those here who are sniping at the Anglican Church except to say, it would probably be good to the surviving church.
'm not sure what it does to the nation . There's always been a rash of people complaining about lawsuits against prayer in school in the US with the "what's wrong with letting them pray?"
What would disestablishment look like in the UK?
Would it be like Northern US.. no clergy officiating at public events or a rotating religion version of the current establishment toss a priest into Government events?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'll leave the first to those here who are sniping at the Anglican Church except to say, it would probably be good to the surviving church.
'm not sure what it does to the nation . There's always been a rash of people complaining about lawsuits against prayer in school in the US with the "what's wrong with letting them pray?"
What would disestablishment look like in the UK?
Would it be like Northern US.. no clergy officiating at public events or a rotating religion version of the current establishment toss a priest into Government events?
Well, this is the crux of the matter. To Americans, the CofE's established status probably sounds like an unfair monopoly of the public role of religion. In fact, the established status is the only reason there is any public role for religion, short of being an easy hot potato on cheap TV and radio discussion shows. The Church of England wouldn't be replaced with anything. Disestablishment itself would be conceived of as the removal, not the liberation, of religion.
I don't think the end of establishment would be good to the surviving church, I think it would presage its breakup into different liturgical/ideological parts. I can't think of any reason other than proximity to the cultural discourse which would induce people as different as Nicky Gumbel and Giles Fraser to live and work in the same denomination. I may be wrong.
[ 07. September 2013, 06:53: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
Would someone qualified to do so please explain what actual difference disestablishment would mean to the punters in the pews?
The Church in Wales has been disestablished for nearly a century, and I see no noticeable difference between it and the C of E (I attend churches in both) The C in W is probably a bit poorer, but that was because it was also disendowed when it was disestablished (it got shafted good and proper). As I recall, the point at issue in Wales was non-conformists being required to pay tithes to their local anglican vicar, which seems rather quaint now, to say the least.
People in Wales still expect to get married in and buried from their local anglican church, even if they never go there. This and the church schools are most people's points of contact with the church, and it's all exactly the same in both provinces. So if disestablishment happened, would anyone notice except a few church geeks?
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
The two options for an official state religion are either the state becomes obsessed with determining who is really an adherent and who is just saying so to garner benefits from the state (the Inquisitorial option) or the state religion eliminates dissent by becoming so fluffy, toothless, and content-free that there are no strenuous dissenters (the Anglican option).
In short, state-backed religion is bad for both the state and for religion.
You don't have established religion in the States. You have Rick Warren and John Spong.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Surely the issues about "people getting married" etc. are peripheral. The real questions are to do with Monarchy (who would do the Coronation?), the Legislature (the Lords Spiritual) and issues such as Parliament having to vote on changes to the Prayer Book etc.
As a Nonconformist I see no point to Establishment ... yet, as others have said above, Disestablishment might well send the Secularists into paroxysms of joy and give the unintended message that religion is not important.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There is no 'established'church in Scotland.
There is,however, the National Church of Scotland.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've said in previous threads on this that disestablishment, shedding the clinging embrace of power, might be good for the church, but would be bad for the state. Unlike Wales, where it was about 'which church?', under modern conditions, in England, it would be about corporate national apostasy, the state throwing off any sense that it is accountable to God.
From this very morning's readings (Wis 5:17-6:11 with all due respects to Sir Kevin who uses a different programme), addressed to all rulers,
quote:
3 For power is given you of the Lord, and sovereignty from the Highest, who shall try your works, and search out your counsels. (AV to spare hosts copyright anxieties)
and, a bit further on,
quote:
6 For mercy will soon pardon the meanest: but mighty men shall be mightily tormented. 7 For he which is Lord over all shall fear no man’s person, neither shall he stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for he hath made the small and great, and careth for all alike.
It's also very dangerous for the state and for us who live under its authority, since it invites God's wrath on the public weal, which is very bad for all of us irrespective of whether we have any control over the decision.
[ 07. September 2013, 09:45: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing...... Don't you get bored of it?
One thing I have noticed is that, in all your lengthy discussions and Sharing Of Deep Wisdom, the words "Christ" or "Jesus" are never uttered (except as oaths). Sad, sad, sad.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well well well... It seems as though you have once again, despite your best efforts, become a pawn in one of my rather elaborate ruses, and it seems as though the end result of said ruse has left your state of being of a lesser quality than before you were dealt the card hidden up my sleeve, while being none the wiser! And yes, while it is true that you will eventually recover from this recent turn of events, it remains unclear whether or not your social status on this website will remain at its current level, or if it will take a turn for the worst! After all is said and done, at the end of the day, you will have to accept the fact that you got the short end of the deal! I hold no remorse or regret, for I am and always shall be... A MASTER RUSEMAN!
lel
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Would someone qualified to do so please explain what actual difference disestablishment would mean to the punters in the pews?
The Church in Wales has been disestablished for nearly a century, and I see no noticeable difference between it and the C of E (I attend churches in both) The C in W is probably a bit poorer, but that was because it was also disendowed when it was disestablished (it got shafted good and proper). As I recall, the point at issue in Wales was non-conformists being required to pay tithes to their local anglican vicar, which seems rather quaint now, to say the least.
People in Wales still expect to get married in and buried from their local anglican church, even if they never go there. This and the church schools are most people's points of contact with the church, and it's all exactly the same in both provinces. So if disestablishment happened, would anyone notice except a few church geeks?
It boils down to ego and the delusion that the CoE is still relevant. Nobody pays a blind bit of attention to what CoE clerics say, just as is the case with clergy of other denominations. It's a peculiarly English Anglican conceit to believe otherwise.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
It boils down to ego and the delusion that the CoE is still relevant. Nobody pays a blind bit of attention to what CoE clerics say, just as is the case with clergy of other denominations. It's a peculiarly English Anglican conceit to believe otherwise.
At present, people still have the option of actively deciding to ignore it. Not all do. It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Is going to judge England Apostate for cutting ties with the CofE? Is God going to say "I can send in the fire and brimstone now that all those nominal Anglicans are no longer ticking the CofE box on the census"?
The CofE isn't supposed a national eternal-life insurance premium.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
It boils down to ego and the delusion that the CoE is still relevant. Nobody pays a blind bit of attention to what CoE clerics say, just as is the case with clergy of other denominations. It's a peculiarly English Anglican conceit to believe otherwise.
At present, people still have the option of actively deciding to ignore it. Not all do. It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
Too right.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
I understand that other Christian denominations and other religions (I refuse to use that ghastly politically correct term "faith groups") would oppose disestablishment because they consider that an established C of E gives a voice to religious concerns at the highest level.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
There is no 'established'church in Scotland.
There is,however, the National Church of Scotland.
I'm not certain I see the difference (nor do I see the difference between establishment and the state funding secured by German law). Does establishment mean state participation in senior appointments? Or is it a situation where all agree that there is an establishment?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
I'm no legal expert on what "establishment" means in a church context. It may mean different things in different jurisdictions.
The Church of Scotland had certain privileges vis a vis the State (not sure what they were exactly, but there was a land tax called a teind which went into CofS coffers, which might have been one such privilege) but all that was swept away in 1921 by legislation.
There has never been any Church of Scotland representation in the legislative arrangements of the UK post the Union in 1707. Nor in the devolution settlement contained in the Scotland Act 1998.
The CofS is called the national church in scotland, but I don't think that it has any legal bearing on anything.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Query - in the future, if our monarch was styled 'Defender of Faith' and not 'Defender of the Faith' (or indeed we had no monarch), would it be possible for there to be more than one established church?
Ironically Henry VIII was given that title by the Pope for "writing" a crappy defence of Roman Catholicism contra Luther before the split with Rome. And it was never intended to be an hereditary title, so I'd be happy for it to go all together.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
PS There is no state funding of the C of S, but individual congregations (and probably the central bureaucracy too) are registered charities with OSCR and get the usual tax breaks.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
PS There is no state funding of the C of S, but individual congregations (and probably the central bureaucracy too) are registered charities with OSCR and get the usual tax breaks.
That's the way it is here in the US. Churches and certain other non-profit organizations are tax exempt under IRC 501(c)3. This allows donations to be written off of the donor's tax return as a tax deduction, but it precludes the non-profit from making political statements or telling constituents voting advice in most cases.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In the UK many charities,not necessarily religious based, are able to claim tax back from the state if tax paying donors have signed a Gift Aid Declaration.
The National Church of Scotland is completely independent of the state.It claims about 9% of the population as members,but one should also recognise that over 40% of the Scottish population would claim some relationship with the Church of Scotland.
The Head of State,the Queen, sends an official representative,Lord High Commissioner,to the annual General Assembly of the National Church(or indeed may attend in person).The monarch (or representative) has no right to speak,unless invited to do so.The State does not appoint any of the clergy of the National Church of Scotland.
Certain clerics are appointed as chaplains to Her Majesty. I assume that they are all Church of Scot
land clerics but do not know.I would count these as positions of honour,however,just like some RC monsignori who are counted as domestic chaplains to the pope.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing...... Don't you get bored of it?
One thing I have noticed is that, in all your lengthy discussions and Sharing Of Deep Wisdom, the words "Christ" or "Jesus" are never uttered (except as oaths). Sad, sad, sad.
I am flagging this for the attention of the admins.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing......
I suppose that's always a possible side effect of posting something in a forum that bills itself as a 'space for serious debate'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
What have they been able to change or affect in the last 20 years?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I understand that other Christian denominations and other religions (I refuse to use that ghastly politically correct term "faith groups") would oppose disestablishment because they consider that an established C of E gives a voice to religious concerns at the highest level.
Baptists are radical dissenters by theological conviction and practical application. We'd be more than happy to see disestablishment. We see an established church as an arm of the state and hence unlikely to make the kind of radical waves we are looking for.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE] I can't think of any reason other than proximity to the cultural discourse which would induce people as different as Nicky Gumbel and Giles Fraser to live and work in the same denomination. I may be wrong.
But do they anyway? Liberals, Anglo Catholics and evangelicals are always having a go at each other, wherever they co exist. Isn't it better to see a divide which may not stop the fighting but which actually stops the in fighting?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
What have they been able to change or affect in the last 20 years?
The same question can be asked of Baptist, Methodist, RC or anyone else's clergy. They don't seem to have had more influence by being free of establishment.
[ 07. September 2013, 13:13: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The real questions are to do with Monarchy (who would do the Coronation?), the Legislature (the Lords Spiritual) and issues such as Parliament having to vote on changes to the Prayer Book etc.
Don't worry
Monarchy - dump it at the same time. It's merely a ceremonial cypher in today's world. I think the CofE and Monarchy have to be treated together: there're interlinked.
Lords Spiritual - ditto or seek individual nomination/election from the faith groups in the UK.
Prayer Book - no state religion. The Church sorts its own books and liturgy out.
Not hard is it? (Well, not for a republican anyway).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yeh but we have been outside the establishment which is not the case in CofE. The question is whether that has made any difference to your ability to change anything. It would appear not.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am not opposed to there being an established church, but I'm not especially comfortable with the lack of voice other churches get. Representatives of mainstream churches (and indeed other faiths) should be in the House of Lords, for example.
The CofE is a minority faith group in the UK. A review of the nature and extent of its representation in our society is long overdue.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Baptists are radical dissenters by theological conviction and practical application. We'd be more than happy to see disestablishment.
Theoretically, yes. In practice there are many Baptists who have lost that "cutting edge" and are happy with the status quo. Some of those have never really imbibed Dissenting principles, others think "it's a good thing to have bishops in the Lords as they can voice a Christian perspective".
There is also the whole issue of "civic religion", of Christianity aka the CofE endorsing Royal weddings, Remembrance services and the like. Yes, I know that representatives of other faiths and denominations get invited to take part, but it's clear who is running the party. It also puts Christian words in the mouths of those who do not really believe them and tends to endorse the idea that to be English is to be Christian (unless you deliberately opt out).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Be careful Baptist Trainfan, that is not Civic Religion. Civic religion really was the creation of Northern and Midland Industrial towns. As such it was actually Non-Conformist who dominated. In Sheffield Methodists, in Manchester Congregationalists, I am quite sure the Baptists elsewhere. These people owned the industry and built the civic institutions including Universities, Hospitals and Churches. Those churches were the ones that practiced the Civic Religion. In Birmingham it probably had its greatest exponent in R W Dale a Congregationalists at Carrs Lane Birmingham, but then it was said of him that the way he voted determined the way Birmingham voted and as a Congregationalist that was Liberal.
It was a localism that we do not see in current British politics but also with a social conscience.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
