Is there a role for an established or national church?

[EmilyAlexandra]

In the UK the establishment of the Church of England leads to having clerics sitting in the legislature. They have limited power but it is plainly undemocratic and oppressive of those of other beliefs, or of no belief.

I think that is a fair point. I have very mixed feelings about the House of Lords. On the one hand, it is an oddly undemocratic institution, comprising political appointees, non-political appointees, 90 peers elected from among the hereditary peerage, 26 Anglican bishops, retired law lords and lords chief justices, and, finally, the earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain. On the other hand, there is probably no other legislative chamber in the world which draws together so many people who have achieved distinction in so many different fields. One of the strengths of the House of Lords is that its members are academics, lawyers, doctors, retired civil servants, diplomats, royal courtiers, military officers, police officers, and heads of the intelligence and security services, sportspeople, ministers and rabbis, and newspaper editors among others. Even the politicians in the Lords can afford to be more independent, as they do not have to worry about winning elections and they are by convention ineligible to hold senior ministerial office.

However, I digress. In terms of reform of the House of Lords, I think the first priority should be the removal of the 92 hereditary peers. It is quite ridiculous that 92 people are eligible to sit in the upper house of legislature by virtue of an inherited privilege (two of them without even having to contest an election). At least the bishops have done something to earn their position in the Lords. That said, removal of the bishops would probably be the next priority after removal of the hereditaries. It is plainly odd, in the modern world, and in a secular, multicultural society, that 26 seats in Parliament are reserved for members of a religion that is practised by only about 1.5% of the population. No other faith community is represented (except a peerage traditionally awarded to the chief rabbi and the occasional peerage awarded to a non-conformist minister such as Lord Soper). Furthermore, the bishops represent only one country within the Union. What I would be in favour of would be continuing to award life peerages to selected bishops of particular distinction. Lord Harries of Pentregarth is a good example.

You are certainly right that the bishops have little real power. For one thing, they make up only about 3% of the House of Lords. Moreover, they rarely attend, unless the House is debating a topic in which the Church has a special interest. Supposedly, they have an informal rota system designed to ensure that one bishop is usually in attendance. Of course, diocesan bishops are very busy doing their main job, so do not have a lot of time to devote to politics, especially if their diocese is a long way from the capital. It would take the bishop of Truro almost 6 hours in each direction to commute from Feock to Westminster.

 

[PickyPicky]

I have very mixed feelings about the House of Lords

Me too. In theory it is quite indefensible. In practice it is useful.

It keeps its hands off money Bills; by the Salisbury Convention it does not oppose Bills promised by the governing party in its manifesto; its decisions can be overruled by the Commons. But it offers detailed consideration of Bills, bringing to bear the experience of very distinguished members; and when it sets out to oppose Government measures it is because some fundamental issues of principle or of good governance are involved: it is expected, for instance, to strongly oppose the current Internal Market Bill, which provides the Government with the mechanism to break the law.

However, I digress. In terms of reform of the House of Lords, I think the first priority should be the removal of the 92 hereditary peers.

Absolutely right.

That said, removal of the bishops would probably be the next priority after removal of the hereditaries

Here I dissent. Of course the guaranteed presence of unelected representatives of a minority is undemocratic but then the whole House is undemocratic. The representation of the CofE simply reflects its rôle as a national church and is valuable for the same reason: it ensures the presence in national life and debate of considerations beyond the immediate and practical.

The House clearly needs reform, but I have a Burkean view of the thing: don’t change bits of the constitution if they work; and if they don’t work, change them slowly and with great care. What we really don’t want is an elected second chamber that either duplicates the Commons or spends its life battling the Commons.
.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I think the House of Lords will reform incrementally. Keir Starmer would seem to be the man to push through some more reforms if he succeeds in 2024. Clearly getting rid of the hereditary peers will be a top priority. The 92 remaining hereditaries were, of course, only supposed to stay on as a temporary compromise. It was never intended that this would become a permanent feature of the constitution. I remain sceptical about the argument that the earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain have to have seats in the House of Lords. If it was possible to create a new office of Lord Speaker, transfer the judicial responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice, annex the office of Lord Chancellor to the newly created position of Secretary of State for Justice with responsibility for the newly created Ministry of Justice, remove the judges from the House of Lords, and create a Supreme Court, I am sure that Parliament could find a way of functioning without an earl marshal and lord great chamberlain.

As for the bishops, there has always been flexibility. For 70 years, one Irish archbishop and three Irish bishops, selected by rotation at the beginning of every Parliament, sat in the House of Lords. In 1920, the Welsh bishops were removed from the Lords. In 1847, with a growing number of Anglican dioceses in England and Wales, the current system of seniority was created. In 2015, a barely noticed Act of Parliament determined that for a period of 10 years, female diocesan bishops would be introduced to the Lords in preference to more senior male diocesan bishops except those holding the five most senior sees (one of whom is a woman anyway). Personally, I dislike this move, as it means that more experienced bishops are passed over for a seat in the Lords simply because they are men. However, it is a strength of our constitution that it can be reformed in larger and smaller ways without too much difficulty as and when the need arises. That is probably why it has survived for as long as it has.

Everything changes eventually. For how much longer we will have an established church, and for how much longer we will have bishops in the Lords, it is impossible to say. It could be 10 years, it could be 100 years, it could be 500 years.

One prediction I do have, which has nothing to do with the church or the bishops, is that, should Prince George’s first child be a girl, she will be created duke of Cornwall. Currently, it is impossible for a female to hold the title, but it would not be difficult to change, and in the future it will doubtless be seen as rather ridiculous that a female can become heir apparent but not duke of Cornwall. (I am assuming that the title would be duke rather than duchess, as the Queen is duke of Lancaster, duke of Normandy, and lord of Mann.) Seemingly there is no problem with a female being created Princess of Wales suo jure; the issue has simply never arisen because no female has ever been heir apparent.

 

[dochawk]

What is “generic” monotheism or “generic” Christianity" supposed to mean? There was never any such thing, particularly at the time of the American Revolution. At least any that would have included Roman Catholicism (except perhaps to a few enlightened deists).

Exactly what it says, and what is explained in the following lines.

Christianity in general, as opposed to Presbyterianism or anglicanism. and monotheism in general, as opposed to a particular creed.

For example, putting a cross up in the town square would be advancing generic Christianity (not prohibited by how they understood the establishment clause), while building a meeting house for Quakers would be prohibited.

while there is are honest argument that they didn’t mean to protect Catholics, I think that (beyond Carrol’s role, and that of Saloman) the number of universalists and unitarians and their lack of a formal creed such that they were protestant in culture rather than creed, dispense with the protestant-only argument.

And why any Catholic would not be eternally grateful for the Wall of Separation" interpretation is totally beyond me,

who said anything about anyone not being grateful?

Whether it is a good idea or not, and whether it is just or not, has NO bearing on whether or not that’s what the Constitution as amended says. The common belief by individuals that their own beliefs are best and therefore what the constitution says has done staggering damage to the republic.

The constitution hasn’t held a majority on the supreme court for many decades. There are not two, but rather three blocks on the US Supreme court, none with a majority. The liberal block of four was a plurality until recently, and voted for liberal results, as did the two conservatives for conservative results. The three classic liberals/constitutionalists voted for what the constitution actually said rather than what they wanted (scalia’s opinion in the flag burning case is the best example; he rather clearly loathed the result).

I’m not willing to give ground on either the republic or the Constitution to get results I like; it creates a slippery slope which we are already too far down . . .

 

[Jbrady]

Christianity in general, as opposed to Presbyterianism or anglicanism. and monotheism in general, as opposed to a particular creed.

Essentially, that is like the average sex in a classroom with the boys or ten girls, or the average flavor of ice cream in a banana split. When it comes down to it, any such definition would be arbitrary.

The differences among the various groups are so numerous and so vast, and there are centuries of antipathy that reinforce them. And I’m not just talking about wide differences like Catholic versus Protestant, or Lutheran versus Anglican, but fine-grained differences like Calvinist versus Arminian, which is still particularly acrimonious.

No court is going to want to wade into the dangerous waters of trying to define what “generic Christianity” is. It’s a can of worms that has already been opened many times, never with good consequences, particularly for Catholics.

Second of all, the Catholic Church in the US has fought VERY, VERY, VERY hard against any such idea of “generic Christianity”. Precisely because that concept was used to discriminate against Catholics in the nastiest ways.

Just like there were widespread riots this year, in 1844 there was prolonged rioting over the version of the Bible used in public schools. Catholic bishops vigorously opposed the idea of Catholic children being forced to read the King James Version and being forced to take part in religious instruction based on “generic Christianity”, which was rabidly Anti-Catholic. This it lead to violent confrontations on the streets, like the ones we saw this summer. Read about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_nativist_riots

So so much for your concept of “generic Christianity”. Even today, there are plenty of Protestants that still don’t consider Catholics Christians, even if they don’t say so in public quite as much anymore. Especially among the Evangelical set that Conservative Catholics consider their political allies.

 

[dochawk]

Essentially, that is like the average sex in a classroom with the boys or ten girls, or the average flavor of ice cream in a banana split. When it comes down to it, any such definition would be arbitrary.

no, it’s like “children” as a generic that covers both boys and girls.

Second of all, the Catholic Church in the US has fought VERY, VERY, VERY hard against any such idea of “generic Christianity”. Precisely because that concept was used to discriminate against Catholics in the nastiest ways.

which has absolutely nothing to do with what the founders meant.

You are confusing “is” with “would be best”

So so much for your concept of “generic Christianity”.

Here: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuzwxyz.

Now instead of simply using words I uttered to put words in my mouth, you can simply use what I wrote to stick whatever words you want there.

There is no “my” concept of generic Christianity; it is simply descriptive words I used. It is explaining that the founders sought neutrality, not broad based prohibition.

Whether a state church, or a prohibition against supporting Christianity as opposed to animism, or promoting belief in God over atheism, Methodism over Presbyterianism, or Greek paganism over Zoroastrianism would be good policy, a better choice, or a cool policy has nothing to do with what happened.

The Constitution does not mandate all good things and prohibit all bad ones, and does not require Congress to make the best or even a better choice, let alone prohibit bad laws. Nor does the Catholic church’s position or history affect what the founders did.

I personally think that a state church would be a horrific idea. I think it is better that Congress stay away from religion insofar as possible (but that paying for religious school tuition is appropriate for the government that would otherwise be paid for state schools is good policy). That just doesn’t make it what is.