140 years after Gladstone helped reunite the Liberal Party around the issue of disestablishing the Anglican Church of Ireland, the issue of the link between Church and State has once again reared its head. The Telegraph yesterday reported that the Government is considering
a report being drawn up in Downing Street on ways to reform a key element of the established Church, the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bars a Catholic from ascending to the throne. David Cairns, a former Roman Catholic priest who resigned as a minister at the Scotland Office two months ago in protest at Gordon Brown’s leadership, said … “It is simply untenable in this day and age that should the heir to the throne want to marry a Roman Catholic he would have to renounce his rights. It’s absurd.
“But you can’t just unpick that one thing. You have to think through the consequences. If Prince William married a Catholic what happens if their children are Catholic? You can’t have a Roman Catholic head of the Church of England. So you have to have some way of resolving the issue of the head of state being the titular head of the established Church. If the Archbishop [of Canterbury] himself is raising the prospect of disestablishment why not do something about it?”
I was brought up in the nonconformist Christian tradition, and it has always seemed to me utterly bizarre that the state should have any say over matters of personal faith; that the appointment of bishops and archbishops should be subject to government approval is the ultimate hubris (admittedly the Church of England’s founder was not known for his demure modesty). And that the Church, which presumably is in the position to appeal to the Highest Power of all, should seek instead to pray in aid man-made government suggests a worrying lack of self-confidence.
Of course, the reality is that church disestablishment is a minority interest; historical anachronism though it is, it’s hard to point to a particular malignancy, a social ill, that would be cured through the separation of church and state. I guess for me it’s more a case of “I wouldn’t start from here” – disestablishment is, in my view, the right thing to do, the neat thing to do. But it’s not going to get me impassioned.
The case for the continuing establishment of the Church of England was espoused by a Liberal Democrat very recently – Alan Beith, speaking last month at the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum’s inaugural Gladstone Lecture, put forward the view that:
… disestablishment is not a necessary feature of a diverse and multi-cultural society, and if the purpose of disestablishment were to make religion less significant in society, that would not justify it. Indeed, if that were to be the result, it would be most unwelcome to many of the groups in whose interest it is being pursued – 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. … in current conditions disestablishment might pander to the view that religion in general needs to be banished from society, painted out like offensive graffiti by council workers, almost literally in some cases. It is that sort of view which produces “winterval” and “happy holidays” instead of Christmas, and takes down crosses in crematoria.
But what’s your view, dear reader? That’s what LDV is asking in our Christmas week poll: Do you think the time has now come for the Church of England to be disestablished?
Here are your options:
>> Yes, the link between state and church should be immediately ended
>> Yes, in principle, but it is a minor issue
>> No, it is important to retain the link between church and state
>> Don’t know / Other
As ever, feel free to argue more nuanced points in the comments thread below…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
The 'Silk Road' is a myth: Trade with the East went by sea and India was at its heart
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Leon Duveen
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
14 Comments
I pick (b) Yes, in principle, but it is a minor issue
Religion and the state should never be in bed together and I think it’s absurd that a Catholic can’t become King, speaking from a non-religious background.
That said, with the world economy in freefall I don’t think it should really be up there at the top of the priority list.
I support an Established church because it keeps the Christians quiet.
“sort of view which produces “winterval” and “happy holidays””
Hm, looks like Alan Beith has been believing the Daily Mail 🙂 Happy holidays is a very traditional US greeting, isn’t it? Don’t know why people object to that one.
“Happy holidays is a very traditional US greeting, isn’t it? Don’t know why people object to that one.”
Perhaps because they are not American?
The Winter Solstice happened last night, and the only people who seemed to be celebrating it properly were down at Stonehenge in the cold and the mud.
Just what does the Winter Solstice have to do with Jesus, Bethlehem and a child born to a married virgin?
“Winterval” is a ghastly English/Latin hybrid smacking of the sickness of political correctness.
There are two Basque words for “Christmas” that speak to the festival’s ancient meaning: NEGUMUGA “winter boundary” and “ZUBILLARO” “log season” (one burns logs to celebrate the passing of the lowest point of the sun).
If that offends Christians, Moslems, atheists, or whomsoever, then stuff them!
The establishment of the Church of England (in England, but not in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) tells me, a non-Anglican, that I am a second-class citizen.
But AB isn’t objecting on the grounds that it’s American, he’s objecting in the context of PC-ness and anti-religiosity.
I think almost everyone’s pretty clear these days that a disestablished church makes more sense. The problem is that getting there will be extremely messy and complicated and difficult, and is it really a high priority for everyone’s attention and all the difficulty it will cause?
It’s not quite the same, but Nancy Seear memorably said about abolishing the monarchy “yes, probably, but it’s about 97th on my list of priorities”, and there is an element of that here too.
I am totally in favour of disestablishment. Where i become conflicted is the split between the minor/major issue. To me it is a major issue not least because disestablishment would change the form of government and definatly the composition of the House of Lords.
However, I get the feeling that the general public, even those that support disestablishment, would probably see it as a relatively minor issue. Since it’s my vote I voted with it being a major issue and adding this caveat in comments.
The vast majority of people in this country are not religious, and the continued privileging of ALL religion is nonsensical.
STV is more important, though.
Option one for me, and I’m afraid it’s right up there as number one on my list of priorities – because if the roots of a democratic society are being poisoned, its branches can never flourish to their full potential.
It’s important, but it needs to happen as part of wider reform, including not just chucking the Bishops out of the Lords, but changing the nature of the whole chamber. When everyone in the upper chamber has to have a democratic mandate, the Bishops disappear. At that point, you might as well disestablish the Church, as much as a mercy as anything else. To raise the issue specifically in terms of disestablishment invites conflict.
From the article and thread why is disestablishing the Church of Scotland not worth a mention ? Or a Poll ?
All i would say on the subject is that establishment has done much over the years to protect England from proper religion. If it ever hapened as one day doubtless it will the secularists will wish they had been careful what they wished for.
Why does everybody keep going on about religion at Christmas time?