Disestablishmentarianism vs. Antidisestablishmentarianism: Fight!

[christie malry]

First off, Hi, I'm new here, nice to meet you. *grins disarmingly*

Second: the topic.
Listening to the World Service this morning I was subjected to some hellfire preacher operating from a converted PC warehouse decrying a new hate crimes bill currently before Congress in the US saying that if offended his religious freedom to stop him being a hate-filled homophobic bigot in public. Another Xian-type was talking about 'civil disobedience' if her rights are threatened in this way. What a pleasant way to start the week.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking about the differences between the political treatment of religion on either side of the pond. In the UK the Church is an official arm of the state, has unelected representation in the upper legislative house and the head of state legally has a direct line to God. The church is also one of the largest landowners in the country and receives funding from the state to educate children in its schools. The negative consequences of this entrenched theism are roughly:
(a) That after the recent flooding the Bishop of York appeared to suggest something about our liberal ways being partially responsible for the deaths, but was very equivocal and quickly retracted.
(b) The only other recent religion story that comes to mind was about the Bishop of Southwark, which should give you a flavour of the kind of people our official religion produces. [As a newbie I can't post a link, but if you google for it, and especially for the phrase 'I'm the Bishop of Southwark, this is what I do' you'll get the idea]

On the other hand the US has enshrined separation of powers federally (and as I understand it at a state level also? Not sure, not actually been to the US since I was 7, but I'm sure someone can enlighten me), and produces this bumwaddery, and several series' worth of Louis Theroux ‘look at the crazies’ documentaries annually. If we assume religions have political consequences rather than being mere sociological reflections of power structures, does my five minutes of early morning musing have any lessons for public policy? Or do we just have funnier bishops?

N.B. If it means anything, my personal view is that the US method is the correct one, but I’d be interested to hear points of view, obviously. This being a discussion thread and all.

[Zep]

I'm just trying to get over the OP title...!

[Kerberos]

Certainly an improtant issue and one which I'd like to see settled but sadly..

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Disestablishmentarianism&word2=Antidisestablishmentarianism

Oh and someone claimed that you can post links as long as you uncheck the "automatically parse links in text" option.

[Puppycow]

Well, not all state religions are as benign as CofE. In fact, that appears to be a bit of an outlier. The Taliban, Wahabbi, and the Iranian Ayatollahs are also state religions. In Britain, both the CofE and the Crown itself have only recently been tamed. They used to wield real power. I rather tend to doubt that the CofE is the cause of British religious moderation any more than the Crown is the cause of democracy. Rather, both the Church and the Crown probably read the writing on the wall and decided that diminished real power was an acceptable price for continued existence. In other words, both have been tamed.

(Of course, I'm simply an outside observer, so take it FWIW.)

[The Atheist]

First off, Hi, I'm new here, nice to meet you. *grins disarmingly*

Well, a disarming grin is a nice change from arming oneself with an AK47 before starting, so hi!

N.B. If it means anything, my personal view is that the US method is the correct one, but I’d be interested to hear points of view, obviously. This being a discussion thread and all.

I agree entirely, yet the strange thing is that in UK and all British Commonwealth countries - where the direct line to god still applies, even if only as a technicality - have far fewer religious nutters. If anyone stood up in any of those countries and suggested that the planet is 6011 years old, they'd be laughed at, yet in USA, there is sufficient pressure from fundy idiots that Grand Canyon staff aren't allowed to mention its age?

We're moving towards removing the god-thing from all legislation. Well, the ruling regime wants to do that and seems to have a short time-frame in mind, so I'm hopeful.

[egslim]

I agree entirely, yet the strange thing is that in UK and all British Commonwealth countries - where the direct line to god still applies, even if only as a technicality - have far fewer religious nutters.
The same is true for many European nations, who lack complete seperation of church and state, but where the population has grown far more secular over the last 200 years compared to the US. So the emperical evidence suggests that legal seperation of church and state hampers popular secularity.

I think the reason is that legally enforced seperation of church and state creates a perpetual low intensity conflict between the two and therefore keeps people's religious identity strenghtened. Whereas without such a conflict people eventually just stop caring about their religion and it withers away.

[christie malry]

Certainly an improtant issue and one which I'd like to see settled but sadly..

Damn these workplace filters, now I won't be able to find out what that means for about 8 hours!

Well, not all state religions are as benign as CofE. In fact, that appears to be a bit of an outlier. The Taliban, Wahabbi, and the Iranian Ayatollahs are also state religions. In Britain, both the CofE and the Crown itself have only recently been tamed. They used to wield real power. I rather tend to doubt that the CofE is the cause of British religious moderation any more than the Crown is the cause of democracy. Rather, both the Church and the Crown probably read the writing on the wall and decided that diminished real power was an acceptable price for continued existence. In other words, both have been tamed.

I suppose if you were to get into the history of the diminishing impact of the Church, I would argue that working class self-education and organisation helped speed it on its way, since it was always fairly transparently a tool of state/ruling class power, and church attendance began to decline around the middle of the C20, so the period where untamed capitalism was at its height through to around the same time that the welfare state was being established. I'd suggest Orwell's Down And Out... or Morrison's Child of the Jago for a good idea of how the church was generally viewed, or Noonan's Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists for a funnier description.

the strange thing is that in UK and all British Commonwealth countries - where the direct line to god still applies, even if only as a technicality - have far fewer religious nutters. If anyone stood up in any of those countries and suggested that the planet is 6011 years old, they'd be laughed at, yet in USA, there is sufficient pressure from fundy idiots that Grand Canyon staff aren't allowed to mention its age?

I've never been sure whether it was simply the massive population of the US compared to say the UK or Australia, and the cultural hegemony it has established in the West means that it's nutters are more visible by default; or if there is a genuine sociological difference. Obviously the UK has lower church attendance, but it does have plenty of equally irrational new age woo, homeopathy, herbalism, the power of stones, leylines, etc etc etc. Can't speak for Australia of course (or are you from NZ, TheAtheist? I only glanced over a few threads with your input so I just got a vague impression you were from the Austalasian continent somewhere. Sorry.).

This being more of an anecdata-based musing than an actual study I don't have any hard numbers of course.

[christie malry]

I'm just trying to get over the OP title...!

I know, good isn't it! I've got a thousand just like 'em :)

[Darat]

Just as a point - the CofE is not quite the tolerant organisation that many like to think it is - it has its fair share of bigots in positions of authority. There was this recent case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6904057.stm

[andyandy]

Just as a point - the CofE is not quite the tolerant organisation that many like to think it is - it has its fair share of bigots in positions of authority. There was this recent case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6904057.stm

but the best thing about the C of E is that it loses such cases. There is no groundswell of support, just pockets of sad old man who are made to look out of touch and irrelevant.

The OP question is an interesting one. I made this post yesterday on a different topic, and in the best interests of saving the planet, i'll do some recycling. On comparing the two systems US-UK with regards to religion I do believe that the UK's approach to co-option is much more beneficial. In the states here is no official state religion but religion is many multitudes more important in the political process itself.

The co-option of the Church of England within the political system far from giving the Church strong political influence, actually serves to neuter its influence. The church remains largely apolitical for when it does enter political debates it is normally as an irrelevance. One only has to look at the importance of US candidates' expression of their faith as an election topic along with the powerful christian lobby and its influence upon social political topics such as homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia. Perhaps a more analogous way to regard government church funding would be as a pay off in exchange for staying out of the political process.

That's not to suggest that the Church has no influence - just that relative to the US, I believe that the ability of the state to co-opt religion has lead to much greater controls upon religion.
A good analogy would be with regards to drugs - regarding religion as a drug which in America is "illegal" (ie outside governance) whereas in the UK it is "legalised" (ie within governance). And as in the drugs debate where I would argue that legalisation and regulation serves the best utilitarian outcome for society, I would argue the same in general for religion.

and welcome to the forum - with the largest letters per word mean for any thread tittle ever :D

[Kerberos]

Damn these workplace filters, now I won't be able to find out what that means for about 8 hours!
I'll spare you the agony. When I read your title I immediately though of a Google fight and since your thread didn't contain one I made one myself. Sadly there seem to be some bug so it returned 0 hits for either option. Thus the great question of Disestablishmentarianism vs. Antidisestablishmentarianism remains unanswered.

[christie malry]

Just as a point - the CofE is not quite the tolerant organisation that many like to think it is - it has its fair share of bigots in positions of authority. There was this recent case

Oh yeah I'd forgotten about that. He is a nasty piece of work isn't he? Although even though he's obviously deeply prejudiced he has to try and sound reasonable in public. Radio 4 had a quote of him saying something like "I've never discriminated against anyone before" so at least he knows it's not acceptable. And Rowan Williams is lovely. If it wasn't for his religion I'd give him a great big cuddle.

[christie malry]

Google fight

I'm sorry. Assume that I know nothing of the world wide weberverse. Qu'est-ce que ce que ca?

Andyandy - but this gives rise to an interesting question does it not? In today's multicultural Britain we have a highly diverse set of religions, and at least one strain of Islamic thought could be said to have a problem. Should we say that Her Maj has a hotline to all the gods and give them all a place in the Lords?

ETA: And thanks for the welcome everyone :)

[Darat]

I doubt Queen Elizabeth would go for that however the possible future King George has already said he wants to be viewed as the Defender of Faiths see: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=31155#post31155

[Kerberos]

I'm sorry. Assume that I know nothing of the world wide weberverse. Qu'est-ce que ce que ca?


Ques-qe cæ un comparison of how many hits a given word or sentence gets on Google based on the unimpeachable assumption that the one that gets the most hits is clearly better, more true, or just plain cooler than the ones that gets less hits. There is also a website that does this for you which I used, but which was apparently bugged somehow since it gave no hits.

[christie malry]

Assuming you mean Chas (George? Quoi? Has he expressed a preference for going under some kind of nom de roi? Good crikey o'Riley if so, does he think no one's going to notice?):

*tries to think of way of getting joke in*
*Ding!*

Well I suppose you've got to have a lot of faith if he thinks we haven't noticed who's son Harry is...

*ladies an' gennelmen, eye thang ewe!*

[andyandy]

Andyandy - but this gives rise to an interesting question does it not? In today's multicultural Britain we have a highly diverse set of religions, and at least one strain of Islamic thought could be said to have a problem. Should we say that Her Maj has a hotline to all the gods and give them all a place in the Lords?



I wouldn't be averse to having a panetheon of state religions -

Hindu, Muslim, Jew are the three biggies behind christianity, and we could have Catholicism as well as CofE...

a couple of seats in the house of lords and a bit of cash seems like a good pay off for greater regulation....

[christie malry]

Interesting suggestion, but what about this - topical in light of the Wakefield thing. What about some kind of professional regulatory body of priests, with authority over who's allowed to practice what? Multidenominational but enforcing compliance with things like the ECHR and equality legislation? That way they don't have direct input into legislation but they still get to scrabble over measuarable authority, which is what I assume it's all about anyway. A GMC for DDs?

[christie malry]

Ques-qe cæ un comparison of how many hits a given word or sentence gets on Google based on the unimpeachable assumption that the one that gets the most hits is clearly better, more true, or just plain cooler than the ones that gets less hits. There is also a website that does this for you which I used, but which was apparently bugged somehow since it gave no hits.

Well that explains that. Thanks!

I should've known such a thing would exist - I can just imagine the pub arguments being stoked by that even as I type. Like impact factors for trivia...

[Darat]

Assuming you mean Chas (George? Quoi? Has he expressed a preference for going under some kind of nom de roi? Good crikey o'Riley if so, does he think no one's going to notice?):

*tries to think of way of getting joke in*
*Ding!*

Well I suppose you've got to have a lot of faith if he thinks we haven't noticed who's son Harry is...

*ladies an' gennelmen, eye thang ewe!*

It's a story that does the rounds every so often - given some legs by the fact that "Charles" has not been a very auspicious name for Kings of this fair isle(s).

[Darat]

I wouldn't be averse to having a panetheon of state religions -

Hindu, Muslim, Jew are the three biggies behind christianity, and we could have Catholicism as well as CofE...

a couple of seats in the house of lords and a bit of cash seems like a good pay off for greater regulation....

As long as they have targets set and league tables set up i.e. say a target of a number of intercessions made in a year, and then the league table can reflect the total number of successful intercessions giving people a handy way to decide which religion to follow.

[tkingdoll]

I suspect the main difference is that the UK is teeny tiny compared to the USA. Fewer nutters to be had.

I am fond of the theory that teaching religion and having prayer in schools is what makes most Brits religion-apathetic. It's just another uncool school thing that you can't wait to leave behind. Whereas the US model means you rebel into religion, rather than away from it. Never make something taboo in school, it just becomes more attractive.

[andyandy]

As long as they have targets set and league tables set up i.e. say a target of a number of intercessions made in a year, and then the league table can reflect the total number of successful intercessions giving people a handy way to decide which religion to follow.

just as for every other aspect of public life has been done, they should be bound by beuracracy....inspections, guidelines and regulations all required to be prepared and followed. And all to be changed at the whim of whoever happens to be passing through a ministerial position. Much as we have police officers prevented from actually stopping crime, let's tie all the religious leaders to their desks with paperwork - and stop them from any preaching :D

[andyandy]

I am fond of the theory that teaching religion and having prayer in schools is what makes most Brits religion-apathetic. It's just another uncool school thing that you can't wait to leave behind. Whereas the US model means you rebel into religion, rather than away from it. Never make something taboo in school, it just becomes more attractive.

I agree....nothing makes you hate religion more than double period RE and turgid morning assembly hymns...:)

[tkingdoll]

I agree....nothing makes you hate religion more than double period RE and turgid morning assembly hymns...:)

Although a good rousing carol service is a bit of a hoot, especially if you know the rude alternative lyrics.

[christie malry]

[quote]Originally Posted by tkingdoll

I am fond of the theory that teaching religion and having prayer in schools is what makes most Brits religion-apathetic. It's just another uncool school thing that you can't wait to leave behind. Whereas the US model means you rebel into religion, rather than away from it. Never make something taboo in school, it just becomes more attractive.
quote]

Obviously my school was more relaxed than some. Assembly was nonreligious and usually involved exhortations not to litter the playground. Mind you, I did have to memorise most of 'Come and Praise' at Primary. *sings* If I had a hammer... aaargh :mad:

Having said that, I was in an RC-funded school the other day and was a little surprised to be greeted by a 4ft statue of the Virgin Mary looking uncannily like Buddy Christ right next to the reception desk, and posters announcing 'I am the way the truth and the light'.

Seriously though if it's in schools you would expect more devotion from alumni just because of a presumed bond of trust between teacher and student, surely? If anyone's never heard of the Vardy brothers and their Emmanuel College up here in sunny Gateshead, I would ask you to google it and ask yourself: but can we take the risk? What if someone listens to these weirdos teachers?

[Nick Bogaerts]

The same is true for many European nations, who lack complete seperation of church and state, but where the population has grown far more secular over the last 200 years compared to the US. So the empirical evidence suggests that legal separation of church and state hampers popular secularity.

Well it does if you use only one data point for 'nation with legal separation of Church and State', and that data point happens to be the United States.

But you have nations like France, which are very secular, and have a strong separation of Church and State. You have nations like Spain, which have gone through a sweeping secularization of society since the death of Franco, Caudillo of Spain by the Grace of God. And then you have countries with a secular constitution which are very religious, like Poland.

I don't see much of a pattern out of all this lot.

[Darth Rotor]

Listening to the World Service this morning I was subjected to some hellfire preacher operating from a converted PC warehouse decrying a new hate crimes bill currently before Congress in the US saying that if offended his religious freedom to stop him being a hate-filled homophobic bigot in public.
I see you have no agenda here, how nice.
Another Xian-type was talking about 'civil disobedience' if her rights are threatened in this way. What a pleasant way to start the week.
What is your beef with civil disobedience? Are Christians not allowed that avenue of public protest in your world view? Guessing no, but can you clarify?
If we assume religions have political consequences rather than being mere sociological reflections of power structures, does my five minutes of early morning musing have any lessons for public policy?
No. The five minute feature is noted.
Or do we just have funnier bishops?
I will bet the over on that, particular the ones with pederasts grafted to them. (Obscure Python reference.) "I wish I could have more Bishops!" (Reg LeCrisp, international financier and surgeon.)
N.B. If it means anything, my personal view is that the US method is the correct one, but I’d be interested to hear points of view, obviously. This being a discussion thread and all.
The tension between Church and State provides no end of entertainment.

DR

[Puppycow]

I have a theory that if we just left Iran to its own devices (let them stew in their own juice, so to speak) that eventually, perhaps after 10 years, perhaps after 25, they would find a way to 'tame' their ayatollahs like the UK has tamed the Crown and the Church.

[christie malry]

see you have no agenda here, how nice.

In the sense that it really isn't great to be woken up by some bloke being angrily homophobic, I suppose I have an agenda. It was kind of a jumping off point for some whimsy, which I see you "noted". Sorry if it didn't come across that way but I thought it had at the time.

Are Christians not allowed that avenue of public protest in your world view? Guessing no, but can you clarify?

If you like - yes they are allowed it, everyone is. I just thought that using civil disobedience to defend your right to bigotry was a pretty unpleasant way to behave. Sorry if that didn't come across.

Otherwise I have to congratulate you on knowing more Python than me. Gone are the days when knowing most of the words to the Lumberjack Song are enough, it appears...

[Darth Rotor]

I just thought that using civil disobedience to defend your right to bigotry was a pretty unpleasant way to behave. Sorry if that didn't come across.
Thanks for the clarification, it seems the world has in it more horse's behinds than horses, and some of them like to get out in public and demonstrate how narrow their world view is. I think they tend to drive away more than they attract, as their vitriol is exposed to public consideration and ridicule.

The joy of the Information Age is that what was once local is not eligible to be national, and international, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

Consider what message was being sent by the news editor who chose that story, out of hundreds, for broadcast.

Why? What was the purpose?

DR

[Damien Evans]

Ohhhh...

I'm a Lumberjack and I'm okay, I sleep all night and I work all day...

Couldn't resist

[christie malry]

Consider what message was being sent by the news editor who chose that story, out of hundreds, for broadcast.

Why? What was the purpose?

It's an interesting question. Unfortunately I have no unique insight into the Beeb's editorial policy. However, two possibly salient facts:
1) It came shortly after a piece on the victory of the AKP in Turkey
2) The World Service frequently covers stories from the US.

Now, I have no idea how much either of the people featured in the piece represent support for the position in the general population. The Beeb has a recent, ignoble history of not paying much attention to surveying the actual evidence before reporting on it (I'm thinking here of the Wi-fi episode of Panorama, which was highly sensationalist). I'm guessing that it fit in with the religious angle they were taking on Turkey, but it could easily have been that the junior researcher typed 'religion' and 'hysteria' into Reuters for all I know.

One final thought - IMO the general perception in the UK is that there's nothing so mad an American somewhere won't say it, so it wouldn't have to work against any prejudices to be reported...

[Darth Rotor]

One final thought - IMO the general perception in the UK is that there's nothing so mad an American somewhere won't say it, so it wouldn't have to work against any prejudices to be reported...
Rings true. :D

DR

[christie malry]

Further reflection suggests another bias to reporting stories from the US - laziness. The French and Germans are probably saying bonkers things right now but you'd have to get a translator or at the very least run it through Babel Fish. Why bother when you've got a quarter of a billion people who speak the same language and one of the most effective media machines in the world bellowing out dozens of stories an hour?

[Darth Rotor]

Further reflection suggests another bias to reporting stories from the US - laziness. The French and Germans are probably saying bonkers things right now but you'd have to get a translator or at the very least run it through Babel Fish. Why bother when you've got a quarter of a billion people who speak the same language and one of the most effective media machines in the world bellowing out dozens of stories an hour?
Low hanging fruit for fifty, Alex. :)

More is the pity, as the French, even when mad, often display a marvelous eloquence.

DR

[egslim]

Well it does if you use only one data point for 'nation with legal separation of Church and State', and that data point happens to be the United States.

But you have nations like France, which are very secular, and have a strong separation of Church and State. You have nations like Spain, which have gone through a sweeping secularization of society since the death of Franco, Caudillo of Spain by the Grace of God. And then you have countries with a secular constitution which are very religious, like Poland.
Of all western nations the US is both by far the most religious and has had the most thorough separation between church and state for the longest time. So it is a unique datapoint.

I looked up some information about France. http://blog.au.org/2005/12/09/french_boast_10/
France’s separation is not absolute. The government pays teachers in private religious schools for every subject except religion. Two regions of the country, Alsace and parts of Lorraine, do not follow the separation principle for historical reasons and retain taxpayer support for clergy.
In France separation was only introduced in 1905, and even then less thoroughly than in the US.

[christie malry]

Although when it comes to religious symbolism in state schools the French are very strict - no crucifixes, no headscarves. There was quite a furore over it recently, as I recall.

And I could be wrong but I remember someone telling me that a similar rule holds for anyone working in state services, town halls, police etc. In which case I believe it would be very similar to the US attitude? Similar enough at any rate to draw comparisons, surely.

According to the source you link to,
Still, the idea of secularism is very important to the French people. The country’s current constitution, adopted in 1958, contains a guarantee of secularism, which the French call laicite. It states, “France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.”

This being the case, I think it can't be the establishment of the religion that is a primary factor in bonkersness, and I'll have to opt for my top secret plan B, which I've, obviously, kept secret until now. Inside this sealed envelope are the blueprints required to blame it on the highly religious nature of a lot of the early settlers (if Bill Bryson is to be believed) and sheer weight of numbers combined with a huge media presence. I might throw in a soupcon of Marx and Engels also, to tell us that the ruling classes use religion as a means of keeping the lower orders in check and therefore encourage its propagation.

I hope this doesn't affect this thread's state as a piece of whimsy. *checks current number of Python quotes* No, we're still fine.

[Gurdur]

Further reflection suggests another bias to reporting stories from the US - laziness. The French and Germans are probably saying bonkers things right now.....


Oliver is an exception, and not one that proves any rule.

As to what the French and Germans are saying, the BBC news site is extremely good for reporting that, and in English too.

BTW, in my considered opinion, establishmentarianism has -- in the non-Islamic world -- usually led to tolerant, mild societies.

[Gurdur]

I can't resist adding this from the news today.

.... The French and Germans are probably saying bonkers things right now....

Belgian leader makes anthem gaffe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6911509.stm)

The man expected to become Belgium's next prime minister has caused a stir by singing the French national anthem when asked to sing the Belgian one.
Yves Leterme, head of the Flemish Christian Democrats, broke into La Marseillaise instead of Belgium's La Brabanconne on the national day.
....

[Nick Bogaerts]

Of all western nations the US is both by far the most religious and has had the most thorough separation between church and state for the longest time. So it is a unique datapoint.

Precisely why it is inapropriate to extrapolate a trend from it alone.

In France separation was only introduced in 1905, and even then less thoroughly than in the US.

Therefore, you'd expect it to be slightly less religious than the United States, and far more religious than the UK. In fact, it is even less religious than the U.K.

[Cheesejoff]

Therefore, you'd expect it to be slightly less religious than the United States, and far more religious than the UK. In fact, it is even less religious than the U.K.

Do you have a source for this claim? Because accorsding to the sources linked on wikipedia, in Britain 44% of people are non-religous whereas in the U.S.A, 14% are non-religous.

(By the way, I agree seperation of Church and State not being the prime cause for this)

[christie malry]

Oliver is an exception, and not one that proves any rule.

As to what the French and Germans are saying, the BBC news site is extremely good for reporting that, and in English too.

BTW, in my considered opinion, establishmentarianism has -- in the non-Islamic world -- usually led to tolerant, mild societies.

I had a quick skim through some of Oliver's threads but couldn't be arsed to go through them I'm afraid, so I had no idea of his origins or opinions. Although having seen the misunderstanding that's already arisen between me and DR today, maybe I should make it clear that I was implying that a proportion of any population is bound to be bonkers, rather than that all of Europe is some kind of Heart of Darkness. ;)

With the Beeb it's a love-hate relationship. I love the existence of the world service, and the website, but I seem to spend a lot of my time thinking, 'yes but that's not a good sample size,' or 'that's a bit of a generalisation'. However it's far better than anything else on offer so I take what I can get.

As far as the establishmentarian question goes, if I had the answer, or even any good evidence, I probably wouldn't have bothered posting. But if it's opinion, I would have to say I can't think of that many modern nations with an established church. There's the Saudis, hardly a shining example of moderation. France, Spain and Italy are officially unestablished, as far as I can get from Wikipedia. I'm leaning towards establishmentarianism being a bit out of the ordinary. The 2 examples I have given have mainly arms contracts in common between them I think. I wouldn't want to argue a causative action for that though :)

Oh, looks like Wikipedia lists the UK, Israel, Norway and Andorra as nations with 'vestigial theocratic aspects', and Iran, Saudi Arabia and The Vatican and Athos as Theocracies proper. So that's me told. Right, we have a sample size of 8. Which is best: Theocracy, vestigial theocracy or disestablishmentism?

[andyandy]

I can't resist adding this from the news today.

lol

:D

[The Atheist]

I doubt Queen Elizabeth would go for that however the possible future King George has already said he wants to be viewed as the Defender of Faiths see: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=31155#post31155

NEWS FLASH

Charles is an idiot.

And...?

Note the typically common-sense stuff from Rowan. He is a genius.

I am fond of the theory that teaching religion and having prayer in schools is what makes most Brits religion-apathetic. It's just another uncool school thing that you can't wait to leave behind. Whereas the US model means you rebel into religion, rather than away from it. Never make something taboo in school, it just becomes more attractive.

Excellent point, which is precisely why I let my kids go to religious instruction at school, despite having not allowed it earlier on.

Sitting and being bored off your tits for half an hour by some silly old woman with blue hair and false teeth in the name of Jesus is as good a way as any of putting kids off it.

[andyandy]

Do you have a source for this claim? Because accorsding to the sources linked on wikipedia, in Britain 44% of people are non-religous whereas in the U.S.A, 14% are non-religous.

(By the way, I agree seperation of Church and State not being the prime cause for this)

these (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1826) are assorted stats re Britain.

World Values Survey, 2005
In Britain, only 42% of those interviewed said they considered themselves “a religious person”. While 72% claim to believe in God, this is one of the lowest proportions in the world, and only 33% believe the church offers answers to moral problems.
About 175,000 people were questioned in 81 countries; the survey includes research from the London School of Economics.
Reported in The Sunday Times 10/4/05

Populus poll, The Sun , June 2005
27% are atheists;
70% believe in "God or some form of higher power";
3% don't know;
35% never pray;
35% never attend a place of worship;
53% said it was not important for the nation's leader to have a strong religious belief;
23% think there is no afterlife.

with regards to the world values survey - this is the questionaire (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/statistics/WVSQuestRoot.pdf)used....

I can't find the raw data - but i've seen it previously reported that in the survey, britain is very much near the bottom, and the US near the top re religiousity...

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect the main difference is that the UK is teeny tiny compared to the USA. Fewer nutters to be had.

I am fond of the theory that teaching religion and having prayer in schools is what makes most Brits religion-apathetic. It's just another uncool school thing that you can't wait to leave behind. Whereas the US model means you rebel into religion, rather than away from it. Never make something taboo in school, it just becomes more attractive.

So this would mean that the reduction of science standards is a good thing, and getting science out of school entirely is what we need to do.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Do you have a source for this claim? Because accorsding to the sources linked on wikipedia, in Britain 44% of people are non-religous whereas in the U.S.A, 14% are non-religous.

(By the way, I agree seperation of Church and State not being the prime cause for this)

No, I don't, I'm afraid. This is from personal experience growing up as an ex-pat Brit in France, which I confess is a poor guide to the facts.

Wikipedia quotes the following numbers for France:

CSA poll:
55% Catholics, of which only half firmly believe in God and 4% are church-goers.
31% with no religion
5% Muslims, of which 10% to 15% are practicing
3% Protestant
1% Jewish

IFOP poll("Which religion dop you feel closest to?"):
64% Catholicism
21% Atheism
7% Islam
2.1% Protestantism
0.6% Judaism

For the U.K., Wikipedia gives a combined 44% for agnostics and atheists, as well as:
71% Chrisitian
15% No religion
3% Muslims
0.7% Siikhs
0.5% Jews
0.3% Budhists

We see in both countries a large proportion of nominal Christians with no strong religious beliefs.
This tallies up to 15% with no religion and an additional 30% Christian atheists and atheists for the U.K, compared to 30% non-believers and 25% Christian atheists or agnostics for France.

So yes, Wikipedia agrees with me: France is markedly more irreligious than the UK.

[egslim]

Therefore, you'd expect it to be slightly less religious than the United States, and far more religious than the UK.
Not necessarily. With government supported religion people at some point either stop caring about or become annoyedby it. Then the support can be discarded without causing a stir which would polarise the population into religious and non-religious groups.

[NobbyNobbs]

I prefer antidisestablishmentarianism.

It's 16.67% longer.

[Cheesejoff]

No, I don't, I'm afraid. This is from personal experience growing up as an ex-pat Brit in France, which I confess is a poor guide to the facts.

...

France is markedly more irreligious than the UK.

You said "United States" in your first post ;)

[Gurdur]

I had a quick skim through some of Oliver's threads
It was a small joke of mine, possibly a little mean since Oliver is declaimed by many to often write posts which are bonkers, and he is German.
maybe I should make it clear that I was implying that a proportion of any population is bound to be bonkers, rather than that all of Europe is some kind of Heart of Darkness. ;)
There is indeed a "Europe=evil/etc." faction on the board, and they make Oliver look like a shining beacon of intellect.
Oh, looks like Wikipedia lists the UK, Israel, Norway and Andorra as nations with 'vestigial theocratic aspects', and Iran, Saudi Arabia and The Vatican and Athos as Theocracies proper. So that's me told. Right, we have a sample size of 8. Which is best: Theocracy, vestigial theocracy or disestablishmentism?
Norway is simply establishmentist, rather than theocratic. Its church is also notably liberal.

Germany has two "established" churchs, the mainstream Protestant and the Catholic (and a whole horde of non-"established" churchs and other religions).

The established Protestant church in Germany is remarkably liberal, far more liberal than the USA as a whole. It goes in for allowing gay weddings, legally recognising gay unions, yada yada yada.

The established Catholic church in Germany is in the middle of a very slow ongoing culture war inside itself; but on the whole is one of teh much more liberal branches.

The Alsace-Moselle (the new name of Alsace-Lorraine) region in France follows the German model. Liberal again.

Jurisdictions which recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:

Argentina
Bolivia
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Some cantons of Switzerland (state religion)
_________________

Lutheran
Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their state religion:

Denmark (Church of Denmark)
Iceland (Church of Iceland)
Norway (Church of Norway)
Finland

[Nick Bogaerts]

The Alsace-Moselle (the new name of Alsace-Lorraine) region in France follows the German model. Liberal again.

Quibble: the Alsace is a region, sub-divided into two departments: the Haut-Rhin and Bas-Rhin. The Moselle is a department of the Lorraine region.

It is also one of the most conservative parts of France.