Disestablishmentarianism
Not only is it one of the longest words the dictionary, it also describes precisely what Phil Woolas is saying. A definition of disestablishmentarianism:
–noun
1. a person who favors the separation of church and state, esp. the withdrawal of special rights, status, and support granted an established church by a state; an advocate of disestablishing a state church.–adjective
2. of, pertaining to, or favoring the disestablishment of a state church.
I fully support this aim. It is precisely what we need. The State and religion – all forms of religion – should be separate. No religion should possess a favoured link to the government, since we are not a mono-faith society. We exist surrounded by many faiths and many claims of truth. Who is the State to proclaim which is the truth?
However, neither should the State be athiest or anti-religion, but entirely agnostic and make no claims to religious authority.
Within fifty years, the Church of England should have lost its privileged position. It has no right to it. As with other religions, the CoE should have complete control over its internal organisation. The Prime Minister should not have any decision-making authority over the Anglican church, up to and including who the Archbishop of Canterbury is.
As for the “consequences for the monarchy”, they are minor. The only differences are that the titles “Defender of the Faith” and the “Supreme Governor” would become within the rights of the Church of England to offer to the monarch – essential if the rights of succession are reformed.
Separation is the only way forward. When the House of Lords is reformed, either all Bishops must be removed from the Lords in the reformation or representatives of all religions must be included, with no voting rights. There is no alternative.
We do not live in a religious country any more. Secular is the order of the age. No longer does the Church of England mean anything to most peoples everyday life. And so disestablishment is inevitable.
Phil Woolas is correct to raise this, even as politically inexpedient as it may be. Because it is an issue that does need to be resolved before too long.
Categories: All WW, Religious Blogs
Heh. Beaten to the draw.
His ideas seem to me to be pretty sensible, and 50 years is a decent timescale for this sort of change.
The question is whether a rational debate is possible with our current crop of atheist lobbyists. I am not hopeful on that score.
And I think Woolas – two self-inflicted holes below the waterline later – will be taken out feet first through a side-door.
Matt Wardman´s last blog post..Disestablishmentarianism
I think the big question is not the event but the timescale. I know of one Vicar who thought privately that the Church of England probably wouldn’t exist in 40 years. So maybe, if disestablishment occurred earlier, some of its hidebound practices could be reformed, the current heavily politicised (and messy) system abandoned and a looser, federal church, better able to meet local needs and wishes of the localities it serves, emerge, helping ensure its survival into the future. In which case it would be better if it happened in the next 10 years, while it still has a substantial membership base, a truly nationwide parish network and large financial reserves to draw on. Having said that, the Church in Wales has never quite taken off since the 1920s – but Wales is not England, and I think the C of E still does have a good chance of reversing its decline if it’s willing to grasp the nettle.
That’s not to say I think the state should be either atheist or agnostic, so I disagree there with both you and with Phil Woolas (sorry about that). Britain remains a Christian country with a system of laws and a constitution largely based on Christianity, as most Muslims and JEws do recognize and even the dopiest atheist would understand that if he opened his ears (I do have one in mind as you can guess – he’s a Cambridge Professor of scientific theory)! At least a nod should be made in this direction as some acknowledgement of Christianity’s importance, but the time when one particular strand of Christianity should be favoured by the State above all others strikes me as long past.
The Half-Blood Welshman´s last blog post..How to lose friends and alienate people
There are plenty of people within the CofE who think that disestablishment is a key to rejuvenation (rather like decentralisation of control could be to local politics).
For me (ex-active Anglican who still takes an interest), the thing that I am concerned about is the massive and underestimated contribution to society – about which most of those engaged in the argument are just ignorant. If they can’t appreciate that the “5 billion” that “makes the church massively rich” that they keep wibbling on about is made up of about 4 billion of pension fund and a bit extra, then what hope is there for subtle concepts to pierce prejudice (none!).
I’ll stop there before my hobby horse starts galloping. Stuff to do. Come on Peter Black, upload those videos.
A word of caution – make sure the path you’re following really will deliver the ends you’re after.
In the US separation of Church & State is enshrined in a written constitution, protected by a Supreme court and vigourously policed – but look at the (I would argue) malign influence religion has on political life there. For any public official to declare themselves as an atheist puts an end to any aspirations for higher office (and will probably lose them the one they have) and ‘God Bless America’ is such a common trope you barely notice it anymore.
Our formal structures suggest CoE is central to our political process and life of the nation when in practice it’s nothing of the sort. In theory of course there’s no credible defence for an established church but I’d hate to pursue that commendable theoretical end and end up in a culture like the US.
I agree with that Liam – although whether it would be worse than the current “not before the children” attitude, which forces politicians to lie, duck and weave about any faith or none and coming out as a Christian is held to be prejudicial to a career in politics, is another question entirely. In my opinion, that’s at least as bad as what’s happening in the States.
I posted this on the Times yesterday – back in the 70s on a Disestablishment question a Labour MP offered
“Hands off the Church of England – it’s all that stands between us and Christianity!”
I’m still trying to find out exactly who said it – I have a feeling it was one of Dennis Skinner or Tony Benn, but if anyone can put me right, I’d be very grateful, I want to put it in my collection of “Pearls of Wisdom” for my office door.
The Half-Blood Welshman´s last blog post..On Your Bus
Christian principles are already enshrined our laws and practices, and in our people. That’s not going to change just because the CofE is no longer an official part of the State.
Government and the STate as organisations should have no religious leanings in any way – not athiest or Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or any other you may care the mention (including Jedi Knights).
The disestablishment of the CofE won’t end the primarily “Christian” existence of Britain, but will place it in the hands of the people to decide if it stays that way .
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Bin Rage
“The disestablishment of the CofE won’t end the primarily “Christian†existence of Britain, but will place it in the hands of the people to decide if it stays that way”
Not sure I buy that – it’s a bit like Thatcher’s ’share owning society’, in principle ownership and control is spread wide while in practice it actually shifts to a few big players in finance over which the public have even less control than they do of politicians.
Just to be clear I agree with every sentiment you’ve expressed thunderDragon – my point is how do we avoid a situation where Christianity (or any other religion) actually gets more dominant because it’s freed from the shackles of a benign, indifferent state.
p.s. The Half-Blood Welshman’s quote sums this argument up perfectly….
Liam, I just don’t think that Britain will ever develop the level of extreme fundamental religiousness that plagues America. We are a morally but not practising Christian nation, and are unlikely to change just because the CofE is no longer the established Church. The difference is that our church leaders are not expected to be politically involved, even though they officially play such a role.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Sanding is very therapeutic
Thunderdragon: if neither Christian-based laws, nor religious culture, would change as a result of disestablishment, what difference do you think it would actually make?
And do you see it as something achieved by legislation, or simply be evolution as the secularisation of the UK takes its course? (or doesn’t… we have no idea what kind of country we’ll be in 50 years!)
David Keen´s last blog post..Staying together is better for children: Government report
David, what is will change is the privileged position that one religion holds over the others, when it has not right to. I doubt that much will change because Britain is already pretty much a secular society – religion (as distinct from faith/beliefs) plays little part in our daily lives.
The main reason it would make little real difference to what we do and how we do it is because the CofE is seem by most people as an anachronism.
Removing the CofE from the state can be done both by legislation and evolution where appropriate and necessary – eg. legislation to remove Bishops from the Lords and evolution to give the church complete control over internal appointments.
Do you think that the CofE should be disestablished? If not, why not? And what could Britain possibly gain from it?
Slightly off topic, has everyone seen this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
I’m a lot more bothered about these comments then the vague and hypothetical question of when/whether the C of E will be disestablished – this is frankly disturbing.
The Half-Blood Welshman´s last blog post..The dangers of militant atheism
Slightly off topic, has anyone else seen this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
I consider this a lot more disturbing than the question of when/whether the C of E will be disestablished
The Half-Blood Welshman´s last blog post..The dangers of militant atheism
So Mr Dawkins (or ‘Hawkins’, as the Telegraph calls him!)is diversifying – perhaps he’s realised he’s not going to win his debate with Christians, especially after recent exchanges with Oxford mathematician John Lennox (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml), so he’s going for softer targets.
Poor kids: no fairy stories, no Disney, in fact nothing involving the imagination whatsoever. Stick to the facts: you are a product of random chance, your life has no purpose, there is no God and no real morality, so, um, stop worrying and enjoy life. Or take this medication, it might help. Impedimentia!
David Keen´s last blog post..Inspiration, and Dawkins Faith
[...] Thunderdragons provocative post a couple of days ago, here’s my personal perspective as part of the established Church. As [...]