Why does England still have an Established Church?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I don't get it.  The majority of people in the UK aren't Christian, and the majority of British Christians aren't Anglican.  If we're only going to count those who regularly attend church services, the number is even lower.  I'd guess that if a referendum was held, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of disestablishing the Church of England.  I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

Devilish dieters. 

More seriously, I think it remaining an established church probably is due to the fact that politicians don't want to deal with what would happen to thousands of listed buildings that the CoE has but would no longer be able to afford upkeeping.

[Del Tachi]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

[DC Al Fine]

I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

Devilish dieters. 

More seriously, I think it remaining an established church probably is due to the fact that politicians don't want to deal with what would happen to thousands of listed buildings that the CoE has but would no longer be able to afford upkeeping.

Related

Apparently its a royal pain in the butt to redevelop churches since tons of non-church goers are attached to the aesthetic, history, idea of the neighbourhood church etc. I imagine this would be even more true in the UK with all of that history.

[rc18]

I don't get it.  The majority of people in the UK aren't Christian, and the majority of British Christians aren't Anglican.  If we're only going to count those who regularly attend church services, the number is even lower. I'd guess that if a referendum was held, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of disestablishing the Church of England. I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

Based on what evidence exactly?

The fact is it's not something a large proportion of the population care about.  Despite people drifting away from organised religion many still consider themselves "culturally christian", diehard secularist republicans are a small minority.

Traditions carry on because people don't care enough to change them.  Or as mentioned above, changing them would cause more problems than it solves.

[Santander]

Antidisestablishmentarianism

[Senator Incitatus]

Antidisestablishmentarianism

[Blue3]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

Compared to the Brexit headache, it would be quite welcome. It's something that needs to happen eventually.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Antidisestablishmentarianism

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Interesting responses.  I guess it also has to do with the UK not having the same tradition of separation of church and state. 

I don't get it.  The majority of people in the UK aren't Christian, and the majority of British Christians aren't Anglican.  If we're only going to count those who regularly attend church services, the number is even lower. I'd guess that if a referendum was held, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of disestablishing the Church of England. I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

Based on what evidence exactly?

The fact is it's not something a large proportion of the population care about.  Despite people drifting away from organised religion many still consider themselves "culturally christian", diehard secularist republicans are a small minority.

Traditions carry on because people don't care enough to change them.  Or as mentioned above, changing them would cause more problems than it solves.

It wasn't really based on any evidence, just that it seems crazy that people would tolerate their money going to a denomination that
s increasingly irrelevant.

[DC Al Fine]

Interesting responses.  I guess it also has to do with the UK not having the same tradition of separation of church and state. 

I don't get it.  The majority of people in the UK aren't Christian, and the majority of British Christians aren't Anglican.  If we're only going to count those who regularly attend church services, the number is even lower. I'd guess that if a referendum was held, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of disestablishing the Church of England. I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

Based on what evidence exactly?

The fact is it's not something a large proportion of the population care about.  Despite people drifting away from organised religion many still consider themselves "culturally christian", diehard secularist republicans are a small minority.

Traditions carry on because people don't care enough to change them.  Or as mentioned above, changing them would cause more problems than it solves.

It wasn't really based on any evidence, just that it seems crazy that people would tolerate their money going to a denomination that
s increasingly irrelevant.

Have you seen some of the weird stuff governments give money to that people don't care about? C of E is pretty reasonable by comparison haha.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Er... the CofE does not receive any direct funding or subsidy from central government, except for a comparatively small amount (a drop in the ocean actually) for the preservation of ancient churches. Its money comes from endowments and (especially) donations. There misconceptions and inaccuracies galore in this thread, but that one needs dealing with first, I think...

[Santander]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

wow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

wow.

Yeah, this strikes me as a pretty bad misapprehension of the current state of British constitutional theory, to say the least.

[Del Tachi]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

wow.

Yeah, this strikes me as a pretty bad misapprehension of the current state of British constitutional theory, to say the least.

I mean, people love to say that the British Monarch is only a "figurehead" but that doesn't change that fact that everything HM's government does is technically in the monarch's name.  While the current monarch chooses not to exercise her sovereign power in any meaningful way, all civil authority in the country is derived from her status as a divine-right monarch.

It's laughable that in 2018 any government continues to operate under such a ridiculous premise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Embarrassing stuff, kid.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, is the Queen a divine-right monarch in the entire UK, then, or just in the one (1) of its four constituent countries that has an established church that she's the head of? Was she a divine-right monarch in Wales until 1920, at which point she became a "normal" constitutional monarch? What about in Scotland, with its non-established "national church" with completely different ecclesiology and churchmanship? Is she a divine-right monarch there?

[Del Tachi]

So, is the Queen a divine-right monarch in the entire UK, then, or just in the one (1) of its four constituent countries that has an established church that she's the head of? Was she a divine-right monarch in Wales until 1920, at which point she became a "normal" constitutional monarch? What about in Scotland, with its non-established "national church" with completely different ecclesiology and churchmanship? Is she a divine-right monarch there?

Dieu et mon droit

I would argue that since the British monarch is crowned in an Anglican rite performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury that makes her head of state over the entire United Kingdom, that she is a divine-right monarch even in the constituent countries with disestablished churches.   

Semantics aside, I can't understand why any enlightened person living in 2018 would accept that there are still f[inks]ing kings and queens ruling over people.  In Britain, civil servants and politicians take oaths to uphold the Crown, navy vessels are styled "HM's ship", government ministers serve at her leisure, and she precedes and outranks every other Briton by virtue of her birth.  The UK shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a civilized nation with that kind of government.

[DC Al Fine]

So, is the Queen a divine-right monarch in the entire UK, then, or just in the one (1) of its four constituent countries that has an established church that she's the head of? Was she a divine-right monarch in Wales until 1920, at which point she became a "normal" constitutional monarch? What about in Scotland, with its non-established "national church" with completely different ecclesiology and churchmanship? Is she a divine-right monarch there?

Dieu et mon droit

I would argue that since the British monarch is crowned in an Anglican rite performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury that makes her head of state over the entire United Kingdom, that she is a divine-right monarch even in the constituent countries with disestablished churches.   

Semantics aside, I can't understand why any enlightened person living in 2018 would accept that there are still f[inks]ing kings and queens ruling over people.  In Britain, civil servants and politicians take oaths to uphold the Crown, navy vessels are styled "HM's ship", government ministers serve at her leisure, and she precedes and outranks every other Briton by virtue of her birth.  The UK shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a civilized nation with that kind of government.

Philistine!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You would argue quite incorrectly in all respects. Firstly, the last (and arguably only) monarch to claim to rule by 'divine right' was deposed and executed for doing so. Secondly, the monarch is the avatar of Power rather than Power itself; the Queen is the symbolic physical representation of 'the Crown' but she herself is not 'the Crown'. The powers of 'the Crown' are vested ('by History', essentially) in Parliament, which is deemed to be sovereign. The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of the entire British Constitution. This is all extraordinarily basic stuff.

[Del Tachi]

You would argue quite incorrectly in all respects. Firstly, the last (and arguably only) monarch to claim to rule by 'divine right' was deposed and executed for doing so. Secondly, the monarch is the avatar of Power rather than Power itself; the Queen is the symbolic physical representation of 'the Crown' but she herself is not 'the Crown'. The powers of 'the Crown' are vested ('by History', essentially) in Parliament, which is deemed to be sovereign. The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of the entire British Constitution. This is all extraordinarily basic stuff.

Then why is there a need for a monarch?

[Mr. Smith]

Antidisestablishmentarianism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You would argue quite incorrectly in all respects. Firstly, the last (and arguably only) monarch to claim to rule by 'divine right' was deposed and executed for doing so. Secondly, the monarch is the avatar of Power rather than Power itself; the Queen is the symbolic physical representation of 'the Crown' but she herself is not 'the Crown'. The powers of 'the Crown' are vested ('by History', essentially) in Parliament, which is deemed to be sovereign. The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of the entire British Constitution. This is all extraordinarily basic stuff.

Then why is there a need for a monarch?

Many would argue that Britain doesn't need a monarch, yet, much like Atlas Forum, which doesn't need arguments about whether the modern UK is a feudal theocracy, has one anyway.

[Frodo]

I mean, who wants their pounds going to a religious institution they don't believe in.

Devilish dieters. 

More seriously, I think it remaining an established church probably is due to the fact that politicians don't want to deal with what would happen to thousands of listed buildings that the CoE has but would no longer be able to afford upkeeping.

They can quite simply hand them back to the original owner, namely the Roman Catholic Church.   

[HillGoose]

Because the man thinks they can brainwash people that way