Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Well therein lies the question. It has to begin with theological debate, and freedom to do so (regardless of which creed it is we're speaking about). But I'd suggest that it's overall impact is far more destructive than the monarchy.
Everyone is entitled to believe in what they wish, but religion should play no part in legislation, politics or anything to do with tangible reality. That would be the first step - getting rid of institutionalised forced religious studies. I was made to study Christian idealogies at school.
The problem isn't necessarily our own nuclear weapons, it's nuclear weapons as a whole. The optimum solution would be for everyone to disarm, thereby allowing the billions of pounds spent on nuclear weapons globally to be spent on welfare globally.
Whatever. I quite like the idea of having a head of state not beholden to partisan politics.
Looking at the reasons cited for the appointment (student of Bielsa etc) it makes you wonder how far up their list Poch would have been!
Yes, I clocked that too. Interesting too that the common perception is that Martino has a better grip of man-management than Bielsa.
It's by-products of religion which are destructive, rather than religion itself. There are also very positive by-products, because [good] churches teach ethics, help their communities and do a lot of charity.
We do have a pretty good separation of church and state in place (despite the fact we have a state religion), and I wouldn't get rid of religious studies. I would change them dramatically, though. People need to know about the world, and what people believe and why; but I definitely do feel like I was indoctrinated with Christianity in primary school and that's not on. We have to be more neutral about it.
But the negative by-products of religion far, far outweigh the negative by-products of a monarchy. That was my (rather loosely connected) original point. People are getting in a terrible fluster about monarchy. For me, in the grand scheme of things, it's a piddling irrelevance in comparison. The loose connection that the thought was borne from was the idea of societal reliance or use of archaic, outdated modes.
You cant be a Muslim and be King, in any other walk of life Cameron, Milliband and the other plums doffing their caps today would be up in arms.
Um, the monarch is the head of the Church of England? Having a muslim (or Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever) in that position would be nuts.
Church and state should be separate in this day and age.
And giving the job to someone on merit would be nuts as well. Much better to pass it down to your kids.
It's been too long since we have used the longest word in the English language: antidisestablishmentarianism
It already is. If you'll notice, the person that runs the CofE doesn't have any say in government. The Queen's position in the church is the same as her position in the government. A figurehead.
This is true. A British monarch hasn't refused to give royal assent to legislation since the early 1700s, and if she did now there'd be revolution. I think there's a good chance (though there's only one way to find out) that having a democratically elected head of state could turn out worse. At present our monarchy is disinterested and neutral as can be.
So what? No monarch has used the power in centuries. Except in Australia, and that caused a massive ****storm.
- Status