The Religious Intelligence website has the story:
Share:A DISESTABLISHED Church is not part of a truly liberal society, the British MP Sir Alan Beith has said.
Speaking at the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum’s inaugural Gladstone Lecture [entitled Faith, Passion and Politics], Sir Alan told members of the Liberal Democrat party that “disestablishment is not a necessary feature of a diverse and multi-cultural society.”
He said: “I know of no evidence that significant numbers of Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs are at all interested in getting the Church of England disestablished, and it is no longer a popular view with nonconformists or Catholics as it was a century ago.”
He went on to say: “Such is the confusion on these issues that in current conditions disestablishment might pander to the view that religion in general needs to be banished from society, painted out like offensive graffiti. “It is that sort of view which produces ‘Winterval’ and ‘happy holidays’ instead of Christmas.”
58 Comments
It’s one of those little oddities that the US, where there’s very strictly enforced separation of church and state, allows religion into politics far more than the UK with the good old CofE.
I guess I’m marginally in favour of disestablishment, but it wouldn’t make it onto my top 100 priorities for a Lib Dem government.
Even for levelling the playing field between people of all religions and none, I think there are other measures that are far more important.
Damn – shouldn’t have hit Submit.
What I wanted to add is that it’s sad to see Don lapping up the Winterval myth and suggesting there’s something terrible about “happy holidays” (a standard December greeting in the US and Canada).
While I fully support the right of Alan Beith to believe in whichever Sky Fairy he likes, I wish he wouldn’t spread blatant untruths.
This is pretty unworthy stuff. Do atheists not count in a diverse and multi-cultural society?
And what about the actual merits of the establishment question. Isn’t that rather more important than how deeply confused a few confused people are.
So Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Catholics all favour an established church. That’s interesting. But what do rational people think?
I take it by that you mean one can’t be a rational, liberal and of faith all at the same time Laurence.
Guess that’s me disappearing off in a puff of logic then.
This is total nonsense to be honest. It is not about ‘banishing religion from society’ but more banishing religion from civic and political society and matters of public policy….
The point about secularism and fighting for a secular state is that it is a universal principle which still allows breathing space for people of faith to have it but only within the sphere of their private belifes…
BTW I agree with Darrell we should be a secular state where people of all religions or none have the ability to co-exist in civic and political society with breathing space for everyone.
Gladstone was a stauch episcopalean who argued for disestablishment afterall.
Very disappointing from Beith.
Can Catholics be liberal? Not if they follow the teachings of the Pope. Can Muslims be rational? Not if they believe what it says in the Koran. Of course there are endless ways of fudging the issue. We know that . . .
Woah, Laurence. Of course Muslims can be rational if they believe the Koran. The vast majority of muslims are entirely rational, its just that the loony muslim fringe – lihe the loony Christian fringe and the loony Jewish fringe – gets all the headlines.
Costigan Quist makes the key point. America has no established religion and the country is in the hands of religious nutters who believe in the actual Second Coming.
By stark, beautiful contrast, we have the boring, staid established Church of England and we singularly lack extremism in government or obeisance to an old man in Rome. Far from being a problem, the CofE is a bulwark against extremism and should be respected as such.
Lack of religion is a vacuum and we all know what nature thinks of vacuums, don’t we? Tom Cruise for Archbishop of Canterbury, anyone?
I think proper reform of the House of Lords, specifically kicking out the Lords Spiritual, would go a long way to silencing calls for the complete disestablishment of the CofE.
At the end of the day it’s the bells and whistles and unwarranted privileges that go along with the Church of England’s status that are offensive to the principles of democracy, not the position itself.
“Far from being a problem, the CofE is a bulwark against extremism and should be respected as such.”
I know what you mean. I’ve always respected people who are a little bit racist for this reason. By the way, I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds our public services of remembrance distasteful. Compare this with the French ceremony at Verdun. Not a charlatan in sight.
What “Establishment” means is that the Church of England is legally part of the state – its structures and beliefs are something the state can define through legislation. What it actually does is give the state control over religion rather than give religion a privileged position – though of course that state control was rather more effective when it was considered treason not to be a member of the state controlled religion. The Church of England was set up precisely in order for the state to tell people what they should believe and to dictate to them what forms of worship they had to follow.
So originally, yes, it was very illiberal. But now that membership of the state controlled religion is voluntary and confers no privileges, I don’t see a big problem with it.
Matthew,
As has already been eluded too that is completly false since rank within the Church of England carries with it seats in the House of Lords…which as we know is part of the state machinery…
Oh dear, we do descend so quickly to outright puritanism in all matters, don’t we. The CofE contains its fair share of problematic views but it is precisely because of its troubled history that it can act as a reasonable tool of the state, for example giving all those Midnight Mass Christians a way of burying their nearest and dearest when the time comes.
There is also the wonderful stock of church buildings whcih still form the centre of a large number of communities – including mine – which could become derelict or trendy bars for two years until terminal decline sets in. Our church is used for all sorts of meetings and events and if it wasn’t for the church it would almost certainyl close as it costs a fortune to maintain.
Put away your zealotry and give a little thought to your arguments. If you ask him nicely, the Baby Jesus will help…
Kidding!
If it was disestablished it would probably
Aieee, Satan must have put in that last line!
Or Ann Widdecombe. They’re broadly the same.
It wouldn’t be much use in itself.
But it could form part of a package aimed at promoting a secular liberal democracy & fighting obscurantism & bigotry. Put our feet down & say no taxpayers’ money to faith schools, no easy ride for those who want to discriminate, no “community elders” having government’s ear.
Most of all, no automatic “respect” to those who seem to think their statements should go unquestioned because some supposed authority has said it.
I have little hope that Clegg will come anywhere near this.
Bah, the problem with religious doctrine is that it isn’t decided democratically and therefore it cannot be applied to society with any legitimacy, and therefore cannot be enforced through any state mechanisms – of which I am personally glad.
Were a national synod to to include a representative section of religious adherents from all belief systems I’m sure the debates would be more relevant (and not to say lively) enabling it to justify its bench in the Lords and contribute to the public debate more effectively, but it may also start usurping the commons’ primacy.
As it stands the established catholic Church of England/Scotland/Wales is the best compromise until we can work out our new and improved constitutional settlement.
As a liberal, I’d like to get rid of the C of E’s near-monopoly on providing the spiritual and moral content of national ceremonies; and as an Anglican, I’d like to get rid of the State’s veto on whom we may appoint as bishops and what words we may use in our prayers. I made a longer post on this a few weeks ago in my journal: http://lizw.livejournal.com/466686.html
Wit and Wisdom: Sure, church building play an important part in many communities. Our AGM, and many others branches, will take place in a church room. I can think of many local church halls which play a useful role in the community.
Only none of these are Church of England churches, so your argument is rather meaningless. Same for giving people a place to be buried in a religious fashion. Many other denomonations manage this without being endorsed by the state. So could the CofE.
As it stands the established catholic Church of England/Scotland/Wales is the best compromise until we can work out our new and improved constitutional settlement.
Erm, what?
The Catholic Church, being Catholic, and the Church of Scotland, being Presbyterian, aren’t entitled to representation in the Lords Spiritual, and the Welsh Church was disestablished in 1920. The bishops in the Lords are ONLY from the Church of England.
ianm,
catholic not Catholic – learn your grmmr!
Being Presbyterian the Church of Scotland doesn’t have bishops, so it is a moot point whether they would sit in the HoL – not a point of entitlement.
The disestablished Church in Wales, on the other hand, has only reestablished the Welsh tendency to be independent – which amounts to the same thing as english-style secularism in practice. However, if the demographics of Wales were to change significantly then this settlement will prove unstable and the Archbishop of Wales may return to Westminster (though this is unlikely in the near future).
iainm, the CofE is ‘catholic’ in the original sense of this word, which is simply ‘universal’ – like all good god-botherers, we think we have a monopoly on truth which everyone should adhere to!
Except the CofE, uniquely, never quite espouses this in the same aggressive manner most other religions do, which is why I like its approach.
Except in the 39 articles . . .
Laurence,
so are you in agreement with the more controversial evangelical view, or do you accept this isn’t a universal view among Anglicans?
I’m surprised to see Alan Beith speaking up for antidisestablishmentarianism. A separation of church and state is surely pretty important in a secular liberal society. Unless Alan actually wants to see a theocracy, which I would find extremely surprising.
Liz W
A Church of England Reform Act which changes its status from state church to national church is what is needed to satisfy your position.Such an Act would establish freedom of religion(or non-religion)and give the church its independence,while also allowing the Queen to remain its head.
“Can Catholics be liberal? Not if they follow the teachings of the Pope.”
But not all Catholics do. In fact, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who agrees 100% with the Pope on anything – just because you adhere to an ideology, a religion, or a party doesn’t mean you agree with everything they say. That doesn’t make you not Catholic. It just means you disagree with official teachings.
Back to the topic…unless you need to disestablish the church to get rid of the Bishops in the Lords (and I’m hazy on that), I don’t see the point of disestablishment. It just appears to be a waste of time when there are a lot more important constitutional reforms to be carried out.
May I use this as an opportunity to plug an old posting on my blog?
Manfarang, the headship of the Queen is not about establishment in any case, but about the rule of law – see the post I referred to in my earlier comment.
“In fact, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who agrees 100% with the Pope on anything – just because you adhere to an ideology, a religion, or a party doesn’t mean you agree with everything they say”
What about papal infallibility?
If they don’t believe it, they should leave the RCC, & then it might find itself unable to inflict the reactionary bigotry such as denying birth control in Africa, thus condemning millions to misery & death. The same goes for the Bush administration & the assorted Islamist morons.
Again, “moderates” who believe in irrationality are a Trojan horse for fundamentalists.
Asquith,
how do you moderate the actions of a fundamentalist by disengaging with them and allowing them to foment in absence of alternative influences? Does one advocate confrontation and escalation?
Darrell, the state could change the constitution of the House of Lords without disestablishing the Church of England. So you were completely wrong to say what I wrote was completely false.
The state could remove Bishops from the House of Lords, it could still then lay down that Anglicans must believe a teapot circles the sun and that they must attend church services naked, because that is what Establishment means: the Church of England is controlled by the state. If one looks at the history of the English Reformation, one can see that the Church of England was set up in just this maner – Parliament passed legislation which said what it must believe and how it must worship, making radical changes to the beliefs and forms of worship which had existed before then. If Churchmen objected to that, as for example the Bishop of Rochester did, they were executed as traitors.
Asquith, try looking up “Papal infallibility” on Wikipedia, as it says there “Many non-Catholics wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says, when, in reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare”.
Jonathan, what you say in your old blog posting is quite right. It’s a common sloppy thing to say “The problem is organised religion”, when actually the big problem is disorganised religion. Organised religion has mechanisms for slapping down the lunatic fringe. Disorganised religion does not, in fact without some central authority which can say “you are out of line, your interpretations are wrong”, the lunatic fringe flourishes because the alternative to central authority tends to be literalist interpretation of the texts.
Matthew,
“now that membership of the state controlled religion is voluntary and confers no privileges,”
that was the bit I found false because it obviously confers a peerage to the ‘Lords Spiritual’ who are members of the CoE
“Laurence, so are you in agreement with the more controversial evangelical view, or do you accept this isn’t a universal view among Anglicans?”
Do I accept that not all Anglicans believe the 39 articles of religion? What I accept is the simple fact that every single CofE vicar will have signed up to the 39 articles during their ordination service. Even the most trendy vicar will have done this, before spending the rest of his life contradicting many of them in one way or another.
Alan Beith is living in the world of Daily Mail myths.
As an atheist I repudiate ‘winterval’, and am as happy to talk of Christmas as I am of Thursday. My heritage has a rich combination of religious myths which build the language and culture in which I live.
What I do not want is one myth given particular privelege which is enshrined in my country’s constitution. Other myths might tag along on its coat tails to give validity to irrational belief, but the notion that any of them should have any special constitutional privelege is an affront to liberalism.
Me too. I always call it Christmas. That’s what it’s called.
Laurence – life is full of paradoxes, like Tony Benn swearing aliegance to the queen!
I know. Like Jesus is dead and alive at the same time. We should just get used to it.
uh, death is part of life – one without the other would make the whole thing meaningless.
Ahem, methinks I had the story first.
Liz W 5:21pm
What you say is correct,however one reason there is no reform is that the monarch is very fond of her role as head of the Church and thus the government is reluctant to consider any changes.
The reforms the Swedes made a few years ago provide a good model of how the framework of Church-State relations can be modernised.
“What I accept is the simple fact that every single CofE vicar will have signed up to the 39 articles during their ordination service”
Sorry Laurence this is no longer the case
In practice, what does “establishment” mean? Although I made tongue-in-cheek remarks about state control, reality is that the nominal control of the state had been delegated to the Church Synod. I think constitutionally it could still be pulled back, in reality it couldn’t. There are various legal oddities that result from Establishment, but can anyone please point out anything which is seriously offensive?
The monarch may enjoy being Head of the CofE, but in reality what does that entail? Given that her headship was delegated to Parliament and Parliament delegated it to the PM and the PM delegated it to the Synod, nothing.
Bishops in the House Of Lords, as I have said, isn’t so linked with Establishment that they can only be removed by disestablishment. I hope we will remove them and have a fully elected Second Chamber anyway (my preference is list system for the Second chamber, STV for the first, the Bishops and hereditary peers are free to run a list and those who want them there are free to vote for them).
There are surely now very few occasions where it is thought to be essential to have an Anglican clergyman present because that is the Established Church. Where appropriate, the local vicar fits in with other dignitaries, who might well include other religious figures. Actually, though, I’m happy with the idea that if it’s felt one religious bod is needed, the default is the CofE one – better that than feel you have to have a whole range of them.
Christians in the catholic tradition should be happy with “Winterval”. It isn’t appropriate to start celebrating Christmas in the middle of October. The four weeks before Christmas are meant to be a period of fasting and penitence anyway. Celebration shouldn’t start until midnight mass on 25th December. So good that lights going up in October are called “winter lights”. If the council wishes to make some small acknowledgement of Christmas when it is liturgically Christmas, good too, and ditto it can acknowledge Eid, Diwali etc. And that good old British feast of Guy Fawkes night. But not Halloween of course (except where it is historical). Maybe we could stretch to 4 July is there is a significant USAnian community locally.
Christians not in the Catholic tradition should regard the whole lot as Romanist semi-paganism, which is why Cromwell abolished it.
LibDems who get all worked up about this sort of thing, do give the impression of having some sort of particular hatred for Christianity. I think we know there are certain people, who given a thread on this sort of thing, will inevitably join in and froth about it.
“Sorry Laurence this is no longer the case.”
Good heavens, you’re right. The 39 articles only crop up during the course of the Bishop’s ordination service. So what’s that all about then?
“There are various legal oddities that result from Establishment, but can anyone please point out anything which is seriously offensive?”
Yes, I’ve already alluded to yesterday’s Armistice day service which was plainly offensive to non-believers. It’s one thing to say a few prayers at the Cenotaph (which personally I could do without), but it’s quite another to start proselytising and mounting indirect attacks on atheists which is what the Right Reverend David Conner did. It was totally inappropriate, and yet has attracted no media comment that I am aware of.
I would like to be able to back this up with some direct quotations, but I can’t track it down for the moment. Can anyone help?
Laurence,
“…which was plainly offensive to non-believers.”
Surely everybody believes in something, even if not in a great big orange messiah.
Is is asking too much to want to live in a country that has freedom of religion written into its constitution?
More disappointing twaddle from Beith. Very sad.
Mantarang says:
“Is is asking too much to want to live in a country that has freedom of religion written into its constitution?”
This country doesn’t have a distinct constitution in which this freedom could be written.
What is in effect the constitution is laid down in various pieces of legislation, but nothing distinguishes them from any other piece of legislation.
This country is also signatory to treaties which are meant to commit it to this sort of freedom. What can be done to enforce it, however, is questionable.
The difficulty is in the detail – what do you mean by “freedom of religion”? Some would say that faith schools are an essential part of this – people should be free to bring up their children in their own religious culture, others would say the exact opposite – that faith schools amount to denying children freedom of religion.
But, in any case, why do you ask this question in this thread? In what way do you think the legal position of the Church of England acts against freedom of religion?
The Test and Corporation Acts are dead but they rule us from their graves.
By the way, I’ve found David Conner’s dubious remarks at the Cenotaph here, available for a limited period no doubt. The section I question starts at 0:49:55.
“The wisest of us have often seemed to understand that, though the world can be in turmoil, in the end we are in the safe hands of God. God’s loving purpose for us will be achieved, and we can put our trust in the future. They also seem to know that in all our working for that future, we need God’s help. We need God’s inspiration, empowering, and guidance. We cannot get there in our strength alone. That is why prayer finds its place at the heart of things today.”
It’s not quite as bad as I remembered, but even so do we think this is appropriate? In the unlikely event that I ever found myself presiding over such a ceremony, I think I can honestly say that it would never enter my head to use the occasion to promote an atheistic world-view.
The words “the wisest” should not have been included, “some” would have been fairer, although of course atheists are very fond of stating that they are clever or “bright” people. Apart from that, it looks to me like you are seeking offence where none was intended. I think he is just saying that some find religion comforting in difficult circumstances. His words can be understood, maybe even are best understood, with “God” meaning an abstract concept which need not involve a real other figure.
I have read everyone’s comments with interest but as a member of the organisation that arranged the lecture given by Alan Beith MP that you are discuss I would like to say that the disestablishment of the CoE was not the thrust of his speech.
Rather Beith’s emphasis was on the place of passion in politics and the place of faith within this. For example:
“Liberal Democrats seek to create a liberal society in which great differences of opinion can be resolved or accommodated through orderly and broadly-based constitutional government and the defence of basic rights and freedoms, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Passion is required to create and defend such a society, and passion to do good based on religious belief is needed within such a society. The tolerance which is a hallmark of liberalism does not rest upon a visionless and lifeless political creed, but on a passion to serve humanity without enslaving it.”
He also spoke out in regards to people of faith being able to uphold liberal ideals: “it is both possible and desirable for a person who holds strong religious views and is motivated in politics by faith to be firmly committed to a liberal political order in which contrary views on religion are protected and respected. It is in no way a requirement of a liberal society that people should be expected to abandon or dilute their faith and convictions, so long as they allow and respect the freedom of those who disagree with them. There is nothing liberal about tolerating only those people you agree with.”
I hope you will forgive the length of this post and take a look at the press release about the lecture or the full text of it at http://www.ldcf.net.
“Atheists are very fond of stating that they are clever or ‘bright’ people.”
Not at the cenotaph. In fact it’s not an argument I make much in any case. I don’t find his remarks personally offensive, but I do think he is using the suffering of others to make a blatant plug for his continued existence in the role. If I were an atheist serviceman, I would be livid. How about: “The wisest of us have always seemed to understand that when 20 million die during the course of a single war in which everyone was perfectly convinced they had God on their side . . . it’s time for a rethink!”