Britain is in trouble

[kılıç_mehmet]

Tell me please, what kind of a belief actually runs strong in the UK?
Anglicanism, the State church is weak.
Catholicism is weak. So, to which Church do your people belong to? Are they not baptized? Don't they get married in a Church relating to their faith? Or did the Muslims already gain enough power to actually take over religious matters in the UK?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't get married in a church and none of my children were baptized. Hasn't caused any problems at all

Well, I'm talking in a collective context. I'm sure that most Britons still yet adhere to traditions and your cultural aspects in regards to marriage and child raising? Or is everyone some post-modernist, anti-culture anarchist in your country?

[zebo-the-fat]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't get married in a church and none of my children were baptized. Hasn't caused any problems at all

Well, I'm talking in a collective context. I'm sure that most Britons still yet adhere to traditions and your cultural aspects in regards to marriage and child raising? Or is everyone some post-modernist, anti-culture anarchist in your country?

I can't speak for most Britons, I'm not even sure what "post modernist" means but I'm not anti-culture and I'm not an anarchist, I just don't have anything to do with religion. Stop making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Gobbeldygook. Nothing to of substance to respond to. What was true yesterday of popular opinion may not be true tomorrow. Which I thought I made pretty clear.

Could be, but the popular opinion is not shifted by wishful thinking.

There's nothing 'wishful' about it. There is no moral argument for a sovereign to be elevated above the people based on nothing more than birth right.

I accept that that argument is not popular in the UK, but most people don't look at the moral concept, rather just the status quo (if they think about it at all).

Era's where monarchies were the sovereign ruler and comprised the sole authority in the legislature.

That is no longer the case, obviously and evidently. What would I replace it with? I am not in a position to replace it with anything, I am part of the people that mandates changes through popular vote.

A republic still has a head of state, but an elected one. So I'd go with that.

I'm asking you for your opinion. You are advocating something, so at least present your argument with a basis.
Besides, I don't think that you can abolish a monarchy through popular vote, as it would be ruled out unconstitutional, since your regime is termed "constitutional monarchy".

There is no entrenched codified constitution in the UK. It can be changed at will by legitimate mandate, and that includes the abolition of the monarchy. Sure, there isn't a precedent I can think of, but 'constitutionally', it's not impossible.

Like I said, a republic would probably be the alternative. A head of state, possibly an elder states(wo)man, either directly elected by the people through a given election process (however that would be set out) or through a party list process. There is nothing set in stone, it would be debated as and when required I guess.

The independence of Rome was garnered from the treaty of westphalia in 1648 proceeding the 30 years war. Anglican episcopalianism was a convenient get out clause for an illegitimate monarch in order to bypass inconvenient decisions from the papacy.

That's what I said, I think. I said that it symbolizes your independence from Rome. Its not just a sign of your political, but also spiritual independence.The Act of Supremacy explicitely means that the Monarch is the head of the church, meaning, not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think it does symbolize our independence from Rome, merely the temper tantrum of a monarch who wanted his cake and wanted to eat it. Had Clement BII granted a divorce for Henry, there's no reason to assume we wouldn't still be a de Jure catholic country. Indeed, Mary's dismissal of her fathers religious legacy gained a lot of popular support throughout Britain until Elizabeth I came in and somewhat violently suppressed it again.

It's easy to assign yourself a title when you're the only one who gets to vote on the position and the title itself. Really, independence from the pope was indeed a bonus for the UK, IMHO, but nobody could say that it anyway bestowed any legitimate 'spiritual' authority on the monarch. Indeed, the entire notion of spirituality is hokum to begin with so I think that point is entirely moot.

It had nothing to do with wanting independence of the pope (which was obviously a good thing), and everything to do with ego.

And that is a good reason to abolish it?

Yup! I mean why not? The foundation for its implementation was misinformation and a tyrannical ego. The only reason it's changed is because people don't connect with Christianity anymore.

To the laity, the transition from Catholicism to Anglicanism meant nothing unless you disagreed. Then, you were more than likely summarily executed. In hindsight, the CofE et al were no better than the pope.

Better or not, it severed your ties with Rome. Its a part of your National Heritage.

I agree. It depends entirely on how much weight you put onto 'National Heritage'. I prefer to live for tomorrow and not the past.

Regardless of what nonsense diatribe you want out retort with, the Anglican Church is no completely irrelevant to all but a minority of the population. No point in having an established, irrelevant institution that does nothing.

As I said, how do you define relevancy? Church attendance?
From how I see it, the Church is indeed very relevant. Just ask the Ulster Loyalists whether they think the Anglican Church is relevant or not.

Yes, I would say church attendance. It's dropped year on year for many decades now. The 2001 census listed around 70% of the people of England and Wales ascribing to a (white) Christian church. The 2009 BSAS (British social attitudes survey) concluded 50% of the people were now atheists or had 'no religion'. The 2011 census said 60%, but more surveys since indicate that it could be as low as 20% and that many people are so called 'nominal' Christians, in name/by birth, but not by practice. It's funny how this appears only to be the case when confronted with the ONS census. I theorize it's because it's deemed as more 'official' than, say, the BSAS which is arguably much more specific.

The cohort effect has created a new generation that is almost exclusively non-religious, and I expect that the 2021 and 2031 results will see that level of belief drop even more dramatically.

Northern Ireland is always a special case and I agree that the notion of an established church holds more weight there than it does in England and Wales. The same is somewhat true as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

To be clear, the CofE et so represent Jack shit to me and the majority of the UK's population. It is irrelevant.

And what exactly is relevat to your population? Outside of football, of course.

I don't know. Why not ask them? There's plenty of Brits on here.

No evidence of that. Merely assertion based on little fact. The troubles have certainly not gone away, but reconciliation amongst political and religious communities in NI has certainly become much more entrenched by all but a minority of fringe republican and unionist groups.

I merely state what I predict will happen.
The abolishment of the Anglican Church means that Britain will not have any legitimate claims on Northern Ireland. The fact that you still hold on to Ulster is merely due to the fact that you have a large number of Anglicans there, that constitute the parliamentary areas.

Then if there are no legitimate claims, it should be let go. My opinion only, but really, the troubles of NI don't matter to me at all. Is a piece of land that was fought over for centuries which means nothing to anyone not living there.

Nationalism is archaic and illogical.

Oh, and also, where on earth have you got the idea in your head that it's the Anglican Church(es) ensuring that NI remains apart of the UK? Political, social and economic machinations play as big, if not a bigger, role in deciding the fate of NI than any silly, long forgotten religious dispute do.

And Political, Social machinatons are shaped by the presence of the Anglicans, and therefore, the Anglican Church.

Primordialist stance, no doubt.

A constructivist would look at the relative poverty in NI throughout the 60s to the 80s and see an escalation in the troubles and the subsequent violence. They would then look at the comparable growth in the NI economy in the 90s to the present day and see the massive de-escalation in the violence and the increased political stability that resulted.

Laughable! The biggest catholic presence in the UK are the catholic faith schools, almost entirely funded by the UK government! Abolish that funding, and watch those schools go bye bye. Long overdue.

The demographics of catholic belief in the UK are almost as small as Anglicanism.

Tell me please, what kind of a belief actually runs strong in the UK?

Religious? Very little. Depends on the he community/section of society you're looking at I guess.

Anglicanism, the State church is weak.
Catholicism is weak. So, to which Church do your people belong to? Are they not baptized? Don't they get married in a Church relating to their faith? Or did the Muslims already gain enough power to actually take over religious matters in the UK?

Christianity is weak, pretty much.

I fail to see a correlation about where people get married and their adherence to a religion being translatable nationally (unless you have evidence to cite?). I wouldn't be surprised if religious wedding ceremonies have diminished markedly through the last few decades, but I haven't studied it so I couldn't say. Anecdotally, I have 4 mates from my school days who have married, and only one was a religious ceremony. I myself am having an entire secular wedding with no religious interference at all.

I think it would be hard to separate out nominal desires to get a traditional church wedding from those which are actually religious. A lot of people will presumably simply attend a church for a few months, get married, and then never go back. I've heard people say they would do this, but I cite evidence to support it.

I don't know what these 'religious' matters are in the UK, or where Muslims would play a part? I've studied religion in the UK for my PhD for 5 years (PT) and the number of times people invoke the muslim card is just astounding. I can't see the evidence to support it and have yet to see any study indicating that Islam is taking over the entirety of the UK and its political structures.

but where do you get the evidence form that people will want a new 'spiritual patriarch'(??? No idea what that means).

Christianity is based on patriarchy, and needs a "head figure" for the believers to look up to. The Eastern Christians have their respective patriarchs, with the Patriarch in Istanbul being the Ecumanical patriarch that is the head figure of all Eastern Churches.
The Catholics on the other hand have the pope as a figurehead. You have the Monarch that is the head of your religious affairs.

Religious affairs that, as I've pointed out, mean very little to the majority of the population. The biggest thing that's happened in England to the CofE in recent years is the debate over women and gay bishops. Ironically, the conservative backlash against these proposals only served to highlight to the already disenchanted population just how silly and backwards that religion still is.

There are only a few religions that are seeing growth in the UK; black minority Christian sects, Islam, and the odd sect of Hinduism and Sikhism.

You mean like people are de-converting from the Anglican Church to other religions?

More likely the cohort effect, or people aren't 'converting' at all. If your family isn't religious, you're not likely to adopt a religion. Equally, religions whose followers are by default very conservative are more likely to see a cohort effect in favour of that religion whereby children are successfully indoctrinated. No surprise that black Christian churches and Islam see a growth amongst their own communities as they have more children.

All other forms of Christianity are becomming irrelevant.

What do you mean by "irrelevant"? The decrease of church attendance?

yes. The entire mythology and the moral pontificating by the church are effectively ignored by the majority. I can't see a reason why anyone would want to listen to them.

As to your question, what would I replace it with? Nothing. That's kind of the point. No need for any religious head to be anywhere near the commons or the lords.

Well, it doesn't need to be near anyone. It only needs to be there.

It needs to not be anywhere where it can influence the political sphere.

EVIDENCE

The UK is built on the Monarchy, and the abolishment of the monarchy means that there needs to be a new regime, the creation of a new country, just as it happened here in my country after we abolished the Sultanate.
You need a complete overhaul, divide the UK, or whatever you're gonna call it after abolishing the Monarchy, as it won't be a Kingdom anymore, into new provinces, and there is still the matter of Scotland and Northern Ireland to discuss. What if they suddenly decide to declare independence? What will be your course of action?
Ukraine experienced only riots, and Crimea began to stake out claims of independence.
I don't think that you can prove me otherwise, I stand by my words that abolishing the crown would be to abolish Britain as a whole.

If they want independence, let them. I'm not sure why you think its a problem?

People should be free to decide their own fate. Ultimately I think the world will, one day, move towards an homogenous society where there is a total cultural and ethnic mix. Utopia maybe, but not so unrealistic. So any attempt to divide now ultimately doesn't matter.

But really, if Wales and Scotland and even NI want to go it alone! who am I to stop them?

Why are you hung up on bloody revolutions? It's utter nonsense to perpetuate that as an inevitability following what it relatively minor reforms given the desire for the UKs population to disestablish the irrelevant church and remove its peerages.

Show me evidence that there is a general consensus within the British population to disestablish the Anglican Church and remove the Monarchy and peerages.

Popular vote in the HOC every time has indicated at least a partial removal of non-elected peers in the HOC. Even the conservatives are fully backing the majority removal of unelected/appointed peers. Their days are ultimately numbered, there just needs to be the political conviction to do it.

As for actual evidence of disestablishment, I can't, aside the fact that nobody really cares about the CofE anymore as evidenced by the lack of attendance and lack of interest in matters relating to the church (SEE: ONS data).

Anecdotally, nobody I know, including my friends and colleagues who are religious, object to disestablishment or at least the removal of the lords spiritual which are a political abomination and an abysmal mark on our political record.

I know you're hung up on nationalism and all that horseshit, but really, not everyone in the world is so backwards thinking as you are.

Well, in fact, they are. The Scots are nationalistic, and so are the Irish.
They will proclaim their independence once you are done with your peaceful removal of the British Crown.
Perhaps Wales too will get in on the fun, as they are not bound to the State to which they were bound to(by that I mean the United Kingdom, as abolishing the crown would mean that you'd need a new state, a new constitution a new set of laws and a new name and flag for your country).

Again,you're talking as though this is something I object to, and I can't figure out why. Nationalism means nothing to me. I count myself lucky to be British in that I live in a medical and technological wonderland in comparison to the majority of the world. But I had nothing to do with that. Indeed, I'd like to see more of the world become as socially and technically advanced as we are.

But honestly, there's no evidence to suggest its the monarchy or religion that binds the UK together. Much more to do with economics, and the fact that our populations are now so fluid and intertwined as to make any meaningful distinction meaningless.

So, when you say the only way to abolish peerages and hereditary titles is to seize their lands and topple the government? You could have done a simple google search that in fact pointed out what peerages have already been removed and that both the government and the people favour a wholly elected HOL and are (slowly) moving in that direction.

Just wanted to show you why your entire point is actually wrong:

I do know that act. I guess that you don't know that the act does not remove peerages, it only removes their hereditary place in the house of lords. Their hereditary peerage is still there, and so are the property that they own due to that title.

But, importantly, they have been removed from the decision making process entirely, and many will not have their peerages renewed once the current generation is dead. That has effectively removed their worth and their influence. And there wasn't a single drop of blood spilt in its removal.

Our nation is not governed by the monarchy nor by hereditary ennobled gentry, but by common consensus.

Without the monarch, your nation is merely a bunch of people living on an Island. Your forefathers realized this, and left the Monarch in place.

We are just a group of people living in an island. I don't know why you think it's any different. Silly nationalist ideals only serve to separate us.

And sooner or later humanity will evolve beyond such archaic concepts. Religion is just not a big deal in the UK. Thruthfully, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here that cares one iota about anything religious, and that includes the established church. Ironically, it's that lack of interest which keeps the church in its place.

[Cyberman]

Well said.