Roger
user 33309642
London, GB
Post #: 269
Unless you're immediately turned of by statistics & tables, this might prove mildly, if not earth shatteringly, interesting. It seems that Liberals (especially left leaning ones) are most likely to want to do away with CofE privilege...

http://www.brin.ac.uk...­
Roger
user 33309642
London, GB
Post #: 270
However - since these statistics, a rather startling claim has been made about Labour politicians:
http://www.telegraph....­
Roger
user 33309642
London, GB
Post #: 271
However, if the Greens should ever get in:

"PA600 The Green Party believes that the hereditary principle should have no place in government. Therefore the Green Party advocates that:

No person shall acquire the right to any office of government by inheritance.
An hereditary peerage shall confer no right to sit in Parliament (see PA455).
The monarchy shall cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch shall cease.
Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
A settlement of property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property.

PA601 There shall be a complete separation of church and state. Society shall not interfere with the individual's freedom of belief, but it may by law regulate conduct arising out of that belief. In a multicultural society, a privileged position for the Church of England is inappropriate.

PA602 The Church of England shall be disestablished. It shall become self-governing, and the government shall cease to have any powers and responsibilities peculiar to that church. No person shall hold office in the state, or be excluded from any such office, by virtue of their or their spouse's membership or non- membership of any religion or denomination of religion."
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,762
This is enlightening. I didn't know Greens had this manifesto - wow, I shall be voting for them in future.

And now we have the impending suspension of brains and ethics country-wide posed by the birth of the 'royal' baby. I saw a headline about it bringing 250m in extra revenue through increased tourism and memorabilia sales, with the usual simpering of "good for the country". Oh good, well as long as this ridiculously anachronistic and unelected feudal overlord system brings in money, that's ok then. We can forget all that's wrong with it ( and of course also ignore how much they actually cost us). In fact, while we're about it let's use the same principle of money trumps modern ethics and why don't we just sell arms to corrupt countries too. Oh wait...
A former member
Post #: 88


PA602 The Church of England shall be disestablished. It shall become self-governing, and the government shall cease to have any powers and responsibilities peculiar to that church. No person shall hold office in the state, or be excluded from any such office, by virtue of their or their spouse's membership or non- membership of any religion or denomination of religion."
Thanks this is very interesting. Agree with most except part of PA602. Absolutely lets disestablish the CoE, however I would exclude anyone with irrational beliefs from holding office! Spouses we could live with as irrational people do have their uses!
Adrian
KingHell
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 674
Spouses we could live with as irrational people do have their uses!
Classic!
Martyn
Maradam
Guildford, GB
Post #: 704
“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."
(From the Telegraph)

Let's see now: A bunch of people made up a set of rules a few hundred years ago. Now some of those rules might be broken.

Frankly ... who gives a darn?

They could, after all, just invent a few more rules ...
If it was good enough a few hundred years ago, its good enough now.

With incompetent people like that wittering on about meaningless self-inflicted needless, pointless and pretty arbitrary sets of rules - they shouldn't be allowed to govern us. It's obvious they can't govern themselves.
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,785


Let's see now: A bunch of people made up a set of rules a few hundred years ago. Now some of those rules might be broken.

Frankly ... who gives a darn?

They could, after all, just invent a few more rules ...
If it was good enough a few hundred years ago, its good enough now.

With incompetent people like that wittering on about meaningless self-inflicted needless, pointless and pretty arbitrary sets of rules - they shouldn't be allowed to govern us. It's obvious they can't govern themselves.
Martyn,

Your problem is you are looking at this a/ logically b/ without stockholm syndrome that 3/4 of the people have where, according to the BBC, they "love the monarchy" ( and the figure hasn't changed since 1969).

And let's not forget people need meaningless fodder to witter about and fill their days with - the newspapers writing this kind of guff are only feeding that desire NOT to think. It suits State, Royalty and chuch if we just cotton wool our minds with crap instead. It provides a distraction that keeps the rich and privileged just that afterall.

Actually I think the figure hasn't changed not because 75% love them, but because around 50% don't like change, full stop. It's a case of the devil you know -and the usual "what's the harm". If you can't actually see the harm right there in front of you, well then, it can't actually exist can it.

Article

"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy," Paine declared. "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of the hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

He contrasted the common sense of his pamphlet's title with the absurdity and superstition that inspired the "prejudice of Englishmen" for monarchy, arising "as much or more from national pride than reason".

To this day, British republicans refer to Paine's Common Sense almost as the sacred text. But monarchists have their own sacred text, written almost exactly a century afterwards. Walter Bagehot's English Constitution was a belated response to the revolutionary arguments of the New World republicans.

Walter Bagehot c.1865 Walter Bagehot wrote about the "mystic reverence" essential to "true monarchy"

"The mystic reverence, the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments that no legislature can manufacture in any people," he wrote. "You might as well adopt a father as make a monarchy."

Bagehot had identified a developing national characteristic. As colonial power and the riches of empire declined, there was an increasing desire to define greatness as something other than wealth and territory. Britain wanted to believe it was, intrinsically, special. "People yield a deference to what we may call the theatrical show of society," he wrote. "The climax of the play is the Queen."


Martyn
Maradam
Guildford, GB
Post #: 705
GAAAA! You have created a serious LAAG consitutional crisis.

I'm sorry Ginny, but by historical precendent I can only respond with another one of my sarccy answers and this is clearly not permitted because we are on the same side saying the same thing. You have therefore created a constitutional crisis for, as I see it, the only solution is to get the LAAG Synod together for a discussion on how LAAG men (with half-baked beards) should be able to respond to qualified LAAG Cat Herders (beard-free) without using sarccy, or flippant, answers.

Now, because of precedent, we are all going to have to get blind drunk and absolutely not resolve this constituional crisis. However, the good side is that - also by precedent - we'll all have forgotten that this was ever a problem in this first place, so the problem will simply go away.

<Thinks...> If only the C.of.E were run by LAAG! The gay marriage and women priest issues would have been sorted by now. In fact I like to think we'd all have voted that ONLY gay women could be priests, and that they should all be married to other members of The House of Lords, and made to wear custard filled boots every Sunday morning.
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,786

<Thinks...> If only the C.of.E were run by LAAG! The gay marriage and women priest issues would have been sorted by now. In fact I like to think we'd all have voted that ONLY gay women could be priests, and that they should all be married to other members of The House of Lords, and made to wear custard filled boots every Sunday morning.
ROFL! Seconded! And then of course we'd disband, disrobe (yuk!) and generally 'dis' the whole sorry bunch of them. Though on second thoughts gay women priests in custard filled boots might be worth keeping around, just to remind the rest of the religions how they will end up too! I like the custard theme, and the inversion of patriarchy. Female mullahs in bikinis? with custard filled boots of course! Tranny Rabbis in spangled hotpants with a custard pie for a hat?
Powered by mvnForum

Optional Contribution

GBP10.00 to laag.events@gmail.com

This covers: This is to help with LAAG's activism and the Ministry of Reason project.

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please email us and we'll send details. Or see us at any LAAG own meetup (i.e. not EXTERNAL events etc.) Again if in doubt email us.

Refunds are not offered for this Meetup.

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy