Church and State Separation & the Role of Monarchy

[Hilarius]

Good Morning

I attempted a reasoned discussion of this topic in the Church and State Separation Forum and was directed to resume it here as it was said to have insufficient CSS content

Was I correctly advised?

With Best Wishes

Hilarius

[Chris Porter]

Sounds like a possible thread subject to me.

[Hilarius]

OK well my basic proposition was that monarchies are a divinely blessed instution but individual monarchs (like any individual) may be believers or non-believers and may fall short of the standard desired for the institution

I was challenged to answer the proposition that monarchs are not democratic, because they are not democratically elected

To which I now respond that many non-elected officers in any government from the highest to the lowest can be dedicated to democracy (or not) without themselves being democratically elected

I also affirmed that I was pleased to be a citizen of a country where the Monarch believes herself to be the representative of God

From this readers may conclude that I see no necessary reason to seek the separation of Church and State

This does not mean I am opposed to democracy or a supporter of a theocracy

I am, however, persuaded (as a Christian) that God seeks a partnership with his creation where God and men and women work together for the greater good. I thus see it as appropriate in a Judeo-Christian society for the Parliament to open each session with the Lord's Prayer, as happens where I live

With Best Wishes

Hilarius

[Nitrousoxide]

Hmmm… Well, I don’t think that there is a god, but let us for the moment suppose the existence of the Christian god and see if what you said might be consistent with the world.

The first premise is that monarchies are themselves divinely blessed. By this I presume you mean to say that the form of government is supported by god or that god thinks this form of government is permissible? If so, I don’t see any issue there; after all, there were numerous monarchies throughout the Bible which god seemed to support.

There’s nothing terribly troubling that individuals might or might live up to some ideal form of monarchy which god has in mind.

So far so good.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by officials being dedicated to democracy without themselves being elected, but let me take a stab at it. I’m guessing you mean that they try to act as the population would want them to act, even though this isn’t absolutely vital to their rule? I suppose this might be so, a monarch can take opinion polls and act according to them. The way the government is run is then not at all dissimilar to the way a democracy or republic is run. I’m not sure as to whether this is the ideal form of monarchy which you seemed to be eluding to earlier. If it isn’t, then what is and why is it? If this sort of democratic monarchy is the ideal form, why is it that way rather than some other form of monarchy?

So that premise leaves something to be desired.

Your next premise and what you conclude from it don’t really seem to follow without some steps in between. In fact, being pleased with something does not mean that you may not also hold that it necessary or imperative that it not come to be. For instance, a person might enjoy harming others, but also has a firm reign over his passions and a good grasp of morality. He might then be both pleased at the notion of hurting others, yet understanding ethics, see that it is imperative that others are not harmed.

Technically, you would be opposed to democracy, as the rule does not come from the people, but rather from a monarch. The end result might look just like what a democracy would put out in the form of policies, laws, regulations and the such, but part of democracy is the process. Without power coming from the people, there can be no democracy, not matter how much a system tends produce similar results.

Since your other argument against the separation between the church and state doesn’t seem to work, I don’t see why you need to be a supporter of theocracy.

[Hilarius]

Hello Nitrous Oxide

Thank you for a well reasoned and ordered response

Permit me to reply in reverse order

(1) I am most certainly not a proponent of theocracy, most especially because theocrats are as prone to error as anyone else who chooses a pathway that is less than perfect. Being a theocrat most certainly does not guarantee perfect behaviour, as we have seen on many occasions

(2) I would give some theocrats marks for seeking the will of God, but the failure rate in recognising the will of God remains a concern

(3) Supporting monarchy does not require opposition to democracy. Your message clearly shows that a monarch (or other official) can behave democratically by seeking the will of the people

(4) Yes the fact that I am pleased to live in a country where the Monarch recognises her role as a representative of God does indeed require many intervening steps ... in my case a lifetime of observing the benefits

(5) In a constitutional monarchy the will of the people is sought through the elected parliaments, and a democratic monarch though technically able to act independently in practice chooses not to do so, and probably would be impeached if not beheaded if he or she tried to do so. Charles I attempted to reign without the consent of parliament and was duly beheaded. Subsequent monarchs have taken the hint. The monarch ceremonially signs into law the acts of the legislature. This is supremely democratic.

With Best Wishes

Hilarius

[John the Baathist]

OK well my basic proposition was that monarchies are a divinely blessed instution but individual monarchs (like any individual) may be believers or non-believers and may fall short of the standard desired for the institution


Well that's hilarious, monarchism is a generally good idea but it's most defining characteristic, the monarch him- or herself can leave something to be desired.

Is that your excuse for some of the insane inbred monarchs of old like Henry VI?
Did god perhaps fall asleep on the job in creating and appointing these monarchs?


I was challenged to answer the proposition that monarchs are not democratic, because they are not democratically elected

To which I now respond that many non-elected officers in any government from the highest to the lowest can be dedicated to democracy (or not) without themselves being democratically elected


Electing everyone from the janitor to the average pencil-pusher up, seems to be a bit of a waste of time.
In a democracy those with the political power should be electable, if this is not true then that is a lack of democracy not a feature of it.


I also affirmed that I was pleased to be a citizen of a country where the Monarch believes herself to be the representative of God


Well I am not pleased, although I never heard mine make that claim.


From this readers may conclude that I see no necessary reason to seek the separation of Church and State


How would you feel if your monarch or her successor converted to another religion, let's hypothetically say Islam.
What if the State then subsequently introduces the Sharia because the Church demanded it?


This does not mean I am opposed to democracy or a supporter of a theocracy

I am, however, persuaded (as a Christian) that God seeks a partnership with his creation where God and men and women work together for the greater good. I thus see it as appropriate in a Judeo-Christian society for the Parliament to open each session with the Lord's Prayer, as happens where I live


I'm sure the Judeo's are chuffed with this as well.

[Hilarius]

You said

Well that's hilarious, monarchism is a generally good idea but it's most defining characteristic, the monarch him- or herself can leave something to be desired.

Is that your excuse for some of the insane inbred monarchs of old like Henry VI?

Did god perhaps fall asleep on the job in creating and appointing these monarchs?

Response

It is the age old problem. We are all created with free will and the ability to be less than perfect. Actually that was made clear before Eve offered Adam the apple :)

You said

Electing everyone from the janitor to the average pencil-pusher up, seems to be a bit of a waste of time.

In a democracy those with the political power should be electable, if this is not true then that is a lack of democracy not a feature of it.

Response

Broadly speaking I agree, and the average constitutional monarch is about on a par with the average pencil-pusher in terms of political power

You said

How would you feel if your monarch or her successor converted to another religion, let's hypothetically say Islam.

Response

See first response on free will. Naturally as a Christian I would be disappointed :)

You asked

What if the State then subsequently introduces the Sharia because the Church demanded it?

Response

Are you suggesting that the Christian Church would follow the monarch's error and become non-Christian?

You said

I'm sure the Judeo's are chuffed with this as well.

Response

Well said :)

Hilarius

[John the Baathist]

It is the age old problem. We are all created with free will and the ability to be less than perfect.


If the monarchs aren't any more perfect than the average slob why have them?
At least we can get rid of the sub-average elected official but with a monarch you're stuck with the incompetent nob until they die.
The inheritance of political power however limited is undemocratic.


Broadly speaking I agree, and the average constitutional monarch is about on a par with the average pencil-pusher in terms of political power


Why keep them then, as a fancy paperweight or window dressing perhaps?


See first response on free will. Naturally as a Christian I would be disappointed


Are you suggesting that the Christian Church would follow the monarch's error and become non-Christian?


I'm suggesting that you like the current affairs because they are favorable to you as a Christian.

That if it would be about the union between the State and another religious persuasion forcing their beliefs and practices on you, that you won't look so kindly upon it. ;)

[Hilarius]

John asked

If the monarchs aren't any more perfect than the average slob why have them?

Hilarius

To fill the job vacancy ... ceremonial Head of State

John said

At least we can get rid of the sub-average elected official but with a monarch you're stuck with the incompetent nob until they die.

Hilarius

When speaking of slobs and incompetents should we not allow the presumption of innocence until evidence is presented to the contrary?

John said

The inheritance of political power however limited is undemocratic.

Hilarius

What political power? A constitutional monarch exercises no such power

John asked

Why keep them then, as a fancy paperweight or window dressing perhaps?

Hilarius

They embody the nation and in times of great tragedy such as wars they become a point of inspiration and example (if they are any good at their job)

In peacetime they can aim to exemplify the best that the nation has to offer

John said

I'm suggesting that you like the current affairs because they are favorable to you as a Christian.

Hilarius

I like the current UK monarch because I am favourable towards anyone who upholds the Christian faith. How perceptive of you to observe that!

John

That if it would be about the union between the State and another religious persuasion forcing their beliefs and practices on you, that you won't look so kindly upon it.

Hilarius

There is no reason to suppose that the conversion of the Monarch to another faith would alter the political situation, so the scenario you propose is hardly likely to arise

In any case no Christian Church in the modern world imposes anything on anyone

With Best Wishes

Hilarius

[John the Baathist]

To fill the job vacancy ... ceremonial Head of State

Can't the official Head of State fill that vacancy?


When speaking of slobs and incompetents should we not allow the presumption of innocence until evidence is presented to the contrary?


Well you see it's the age old problem. We are all created with free will and the ability to be less than perfect. ;)

The self-depreciation term of slob is to emphasize that the average citizen, who could be democratically chosen to be some kind of official, apparently lacks the fortune of being divinely appointed. English monarchs like Henry VI or George III and many more were quite simply completely insane and thereby apply quite well for the label of incompetent.


What political power? A constitutional monarch exercises no such power.


The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen Realms, all independent parliamentary democracies in a personal union relationship under Elizabeth II. Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth Realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government.


They embody the nation and in times of great tragedy such as wars they become a point of inspiration and example (if they are any good at their job)


Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.

...

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

- KING HENRY V - ACT III - SCENE I - SHAKESPEARE

A less poetic example of how monarchs lead their countries to war and ruin would be the First World War, which was a result of bruised ego's from stately kings and kaisers.


In peacetime they can aim to exemplify the best that the nation has to offer


So that's why there are all these stories in the tabloids about which royal is sleeping around with who, they're setting an example for us to follow. ;)


There is no reason to suppose that the conversion of the Monarch to another faith would alter the political situation, so the scenario you propose is hardly likely to arise

In any case no Christian Church in the modern world imposes anything on anyone


If the lack of separation or union between State and Church makes it possible for the Parliament to open each session with the Lord's Prayer.
A lack of separation or union between the State and the Islamic Church would make it possible to impose the Sharia Law.

The hypothesis is meant to make you sympathize with us heathens who are imposed to have to listen to Parliament open each session with the Lord's Prayer. :)

[Hilarius]

John

Can't the official Head of State fill that vacancy?

Response

Wouldn't that require a messy political process?

John

The self-depreciation term of slob is to emphasize that the average citizen, who could be democratically chosen to be some kind of official, apparently lacks the fortune of being divinely appointed. English monarchs like Henry VI or George III and many more were quite simply completely insane and thereby apply quite well for the label of incompetent.

Response

I believe the institution is divinely approved, but not necessarily the individual occupant

John

The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen Realms, all independent parliamentary democracies in a personal union relationship under Elizabeth II. Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth Realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government.

Response

Those reserve powers are divinely blessed and exercised with guidance from democratically elected representatives of the people ... with the precise aim you cited of handing back powers to the people in the shortest possible time

This is divinely wise

John and Wm Shakespeare

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.

...

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

- KING HENRY V - ACT III - SCENE I - SHAKESPEARE

Response

Unable to respond due to floods of divinely inspired patriotic tears


John

A less poetic example of how monarchs lead their countries to war and ruin would be the First World War, which was a result of bruised ego's from stately kings and kaisers.

Response

What about the politicians and officer class who manipulated popular feelings? Dear Queen Victoria said that Britain had nothing to fear from a strong and well armed Germany ... and son Edward was hardly a war monger. It was the politicians and militarists who abused and manipulated the legitimate patriotic feelings of the people. This clearly illustrates that Monarchs are powerless to restrain the holders of power. The Kaiser was most unwise to join in the political fray and lost his imperial position as a result.

Quote:
In peacetime they can aim to exemplify the best that the nation has to offer

John

So that's why there are all these stories in the tabloids about which royal is sleeping around with who, they're setting an example for us to follow.

Response

No, sadly, it is the other way round ... those who err are mimicing the common herd and in so choosing they diminish their royal prestige

Fortunately the good that monarchs do outweighs the failings of their families and their own mortal failings

Quote:
There is no reason to suppose that the conversion of the Monarch to another faith would alter the political situation, so the scenario you propose is hardly likely to arise

In any case no Christian Church in the modern world imposes anything on anyone

John
If the lack of separation or union between State and Church makes it possible for the Parliament to open each session with the Lord's Prayer.

A lack of separation or union between the State and the Islamic Church would make it possible to impose the Sharia Law.

The hypothesis is meant to make you sympathize with us heathens who are imposed to have to listen to Parliament open each session with the Lord's Prayer.

Response

Your hypothesis strengthens my resolve to retain the true religion of Christ as that of the nation, a resolve made even stronger by the need to sympathise with the postion of the non-believer so that their sins may also be forgiven as they forgive those who sin against them

Are you not also in need of daily bread?

With Best Wishes

Hilarius

[John the Baathist]

Wouldn't that require a messy political process?


No.


I believe the institution is divinely approved, but not necessarily the individual occupant


That's the main problem;
The occupant is the defining characteristic of a monarchy.
If you concede that the occupant leaves something to be desired then so does the entire institution.


Those reserve powers are divinely blessed and exercised with guidance from democratically elected representatives of the people ... with the precise aim you cited of handing back powers to the people in the shortest possible time


Regardless of what the political powers are, inheriting those political powers merely because one was the child of the previous monarch is undemocratic.


Unable to respond due to floods of divinely inspired patriotic tears.


By Jeshu, I am your majesty's countryman, I care not
who know it; I will confess it to all the 'orld: I
need not to be ashamed of your majesty, praised be
God, so long as your majesty is an honest man.


What about the politicians and officer class who manipulated popular feelings? Dear Queen Victoria said that Britain had nothing to fear from a strong and well armed Germany ... and son Edward was hardly a war monger. It was the politicians and militarists who abused and manipulated the legitimate patriotic feelings of the people.


Of course militaristic tendencies in society played a great part, but who did the officer classes prefer, the common herd or the monarchs and aristocrats?


This clearly illustrates that Monarchs are powerless to restrain the holders of power. The Kaiser was most unwise to join in the political fray and lost his imperial position as a result.


The English monarchy was by this time already limited by the constitution.
But those of the Central Powers were not, which included the autocracies of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.

War was a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy.
Which is why the people called for the abdication of rulers such as Kaiser Wilhelm II to end aristocracy and militarism.


No, sadly, it is the other way round ... those who err are mimicing the common herd and in so choosing they diminish their royal prestige

Fortunately the good that monarchs do outweighs the failings of their families and their own mortal failings


Please provide specific examples of what good monarchs can do which democratically elected officals can not.


Your hypothesis strengthens my resolve to retain the true religion of Christ as that of the nation, a resolve made even stronger by the need to sympathise with the postion of the non-believer so that their sins may also be forgiven as they forgive those who sin against them

Are you not also in need of daily bread?


I pray thee, bear my former answer back:
Bid them achieve me and then sell my bones.
Good God! why should they mock poor fellows thus? ;)

[Hilarius]

John

I concede temporary defeat ... overwhelmed by the power of your quotations

Now I shall retire to a quiet place to study the good deeds of monarchs

Perhaps my Augustinian and Pauline theology will merely confirm that all sin

Hence our need for the love of Christ

Out of interest when did you become sure that your atheism was right?

Christians by contrast are permitted to doubt

"Now we see through a glass darkly ... then we shall see face to face"

Certainty is the prerorgative of science

Yet many scientists believe in a creator

If not the universe would be a super natural uncaused phenomenon

But I digress ... :)

God Save The Queen

Hilarius

[John the Baathist]

I concede temporary defeat ... overwhelmed by the power of your quotations

Now I shall retire to a quiet place to study the good deeds of monarchs


Then I'll wish you the best of luck with your studies. ;)


Out of interest when did you become sure that your atheism was right?


Easy question to ask, extremely hard to answer.

I'm not sure atheism is right.
But it's not something that happens overnight.

First of all, I have never experienced anything that would indicate the existence of a divine being, despite having once hoped desperately that he did.
And if I'm honest with myself, I can't reconcile myself morally anymore with most of what is considered the Christian faith.
The RCC stance on abstinence to combat aids, the intolerance of many believers and the hypocrisy of not doing what one preaches would be examples of this.

I've tried going back but perhaps it's like a point of no return.
My best friend is a muslim and at times I can even feel envious of his ability to still belief.

Many believers make the mistake that atheists just don't want to believe.
In reality you'll find that a lot of atheist wanted to believe but at some point found out they no longer can.

What the results of that would be for the nature of the universe and all, is something one can then only come to terms with.

In the end everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and should be free to act according to their own conscience.

Never Mind The Bollocks!

Cheers, :)
John.

[Hilarius]

John

You come across as a rational, sentient and caring representative of the view that it is difficult to find evidence for belief

I understand perfectly your point that non-believers have a desire to connect with something deeper IF it is there

My own father was an atheist who rebelled against his strict Methodist upbringing and the apparently limited intellectual capacity of some believers, as he perceived it after studying engineering at university

He informed me that the universe is governed solely by the laws of physics and there is nothing else beyond those laws

Yet he sang with no small amount of feeling the hymns of John Bunyan which he had learned in his youth, as my Christian mother played them on the piano

They clearly had meaning for him, even as he denied the creator of whom the hymns spoke

I would like to have explored these things more before he died but children and parents are sometimes curiously lacking in communication skills

You refer to three important barriers to faith :-

(1) The RCC stance on abstinence to combat aids,
(2) the intolerance of many believers and
(3) the hypocrisy of not doing what one preaches

I agree entirely with your first point in practice ... though the principle of abstinence if achieved is not necessarily a bad one in itself

Since it is an ideal that is frequently unattainable I favour practical solutions to which the RCC remains opposed

Your 2nd point is also very valid

The third is a common criticism and goes to the heart of the problem of being a Christian

Every Christian whose life fails to reflect the principles taught by Christ becomes at that point a bad advertisement for the Christian faith

I believe the right answer to that is for all hypocrites to gather together as frequently as possible to confess, learn and improve

The Church is for me an important centre of help for hypocrites, and if more hypocrites attended, with an honest desire to change, the Church might even improve. They would enjoy the company of many fellow hypocrites, many of whom are indeed reluctant to change and who deserve a strong input from an electric cattle prod, figuratively speaking (myself included)

In the meantime no one should be surprised if the perfect ideal of loving one another is not achieved. The Church ought to be a change agent for the better, and if it is not it needs reform, perhaps with the help of a few dedicated atheists :)

I agree that the regularity of hypocritical behaviour is a serious matter and makes me all the more appreciative of those Church members who make a real effort to help others

If all who oppose hypocrisy went to Church attendances would rise dramatically ... there are so many candidates for improvement in the Church who need input from those who see the problem of hypocrisy clearly

I often note that non-believers are more scrupulous in sticking to their (often surprisingly Christian) moral principles

That point is not lost on me and I would appreciate input from atheists on how they achieve consistency of moral purpose

For me it comes from constant reminders of what Christ actually taught ... and I am a regular stirrer and nuisance at 2 weekly Bible studies

I wish you could join us

:)

Hilarius

[John the Baathist]

Three years ago I stood in a dark, cramped and humid concrete barracks in the former concentration camp of Theresienstadt. Someone inquired the guide about the damp conditions and he informed us that the barracks once housed over a hundred inmates with only two crude lavatories for them to use.

Many, if not all of the inmates suffered from the effects of dysentery which meant they would involuntarily relieve themselves on the floor.
This amounted to nearly a foot high of human refuse along the barracks floor, some of which would evaporate only to condense along the walls and sleeping bunks.
The first task of the inmates in the morning would consist of shovelling it out.

If I had any power to stop or even prevent things like this, I would.
The idea that there is a god who sits idly by to watch these things disturbs me more than the idea that he does not exist.

The charge of hypocrisy was aimed more at the Church as an institute and not the whole of the Christian community.
Since we are all humans and therefore can all be found lacking at times.

As for myself, I'm a happier person who is more content with his live as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian.
I will in all likelihood never return to the Christian faith, but if upon my death, I would encounter my creator then I will do so with a clear conscience.

For answers about achieving consistency of moral purpose I'm sure the folks over at Moral Foundations & Principles can provide you with better answers.
As I have never given it much thought beyond my own person.

I hope you are successful in changing or keeping the Church to be a agent for the better and I hope you enjoy your Bible studies as well.

Cheers, :)
John.

[Nice Squirrel]

No political discussion is taking place. Thread closed.