From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:45:27 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1e22s0INNol7@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
[jon has asserted that the C of E cannot be called a state religion for the
following reasons.]
> I'd call it an official state religion if membership were compulsory,
> as it used to be, long ago.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a state religion if you may belong to any religion
> you choose, or none at all, as you may now.
> 
So far a state religion seems to be a compulsory religion.

> I would call it an official state religion if it presided alone at
> great state occasions, as it used to.
> 
> I wouldn't call it an official state religion when the state goes to
> some lengths to involve representatives of other religions on great
> state occasions, as they do now.

Such as? Coronations are performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury; Royal
Weddings are performed in a CofE church by a CofE Priest under CofE rites;
Royal Christenings again are CofE; the presence of members of other religions
is purely decorative. Or were you thinking of something else?
> 
> I'd call it an official state religion if membership in it was
> a prerequisite for high state office, as it was, long ago.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a state religion when the leaders of the major
> parties often belong to some other religion, or none at all.
> 
Don't forget that in Britain state and government are entirely separate. To
hold high state office is to be monarch and ipso facto to be head of the Church
of England.

> I'd call it an official state religion if only its hierarchy were
> represented in the legislature.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a state religion when the state appoints 
> representatives of other religions to the legislature. 
> 
In that case the CofE is a state religion. The only religious representatives
in parliament who are there ex officio are Church of England bishops. The
former chief rabbi is now there, but only because La Thatcher decided he was a
good chap.

> I'd call it an official state religion if you had to get married in
> it, as you used, long ago.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a state religion if you can trip on down to the
> registry office, as you can now.
> 
Again, sounds like a compulsory religion.
> I'd call it an official state religion if you had to swear in court
> by its holy books, as you used, long ago.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a state religion if you need not even swear, but
> may affirm, as you may now.
> 
So the law courts are now part of the state set-up, not part of a separate
judiciary?

> I would call it an official state religion if the state was acting
> so as to promote its influence.
> 
> I would not call it a state religion if the state was dealing with
> it as a historical hangover.
> 
Surely that is irrelevant? The state-church relationship hasn't changed for
hundreds of years. If it was a state religion then it surely is now.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british