Have Prince Charles, Lord Carey And Others Got A Point?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10535984/Christians-feel-pressure-to-keep-silent-about-their-faith-Lord-Carey-warns.html

Why in a Christian country are some fearing to admit their faith in their own workplaces even never mind about abroad?

/// Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury until 2002, said he is “worried about the future of faith in the West” as he highlighted an “increasing timidity” among churchgoers, with some fearing to admit faith in their own workplaces. ///

Even on this site we witness Christianity being regularly criticised, while some will go to greats lengths to give support to the Islamic religion who in my opinion has more to be criticised over.

/// Speaking at a reception at Clarence House, the Prince of Wales told assembled guests the world is in danger of losing something “irreplaceably precious” with 2,000-year-old communities under threat from fundamentalist Islamist militants ///

[jno]

Carey's remarks weren't about pushing faith on others, they were about mentioning it at all. Sounds like the sort of societal pressure gays used to face: not illegal to be one but asking for trouble if you said or did anything about it. I don't see how this is a good thing for freedom of speech.

craft, a tin hat might be more useful.

[Kromovaracun]

I'm gonna stick my neck out here.... but the problem is that the christians are wrong in a way that homosexuals weren't. Every decade brings more and more evidence that just makes the basic assumptions of Christianity unworkable to the degree that holding a Christian viewpoint is becoming increasingly hard to do without also being anti-science. That's not the case with gay rights.

[mushroom25]

//Who exactly decides that this country is 'Christian'? //

how about the monarch being the head of the established Anglican church? or that 26 bishops sit in the house of lords? or that the Second Church Estates Commissioner - traditionally an MP from the governing party - guides church legislation in the commons?

[weecalf]

The political correct started it now we are not allowed a view or its tramping on someone else's toes ,my view if Tim can tighten them up at a back bit more and get the fast ball in from the wing 4th place might not be on dont care what chucks and Carey think Spurs will be back

[jim360]

Is that football? Because I think that's football.

[FredPuli43]

This is Britain. For as long as i can remember, anyone who volunteers that they are Christian is regarded as a bit odd. No political candidate who hopes to succeed ever mentions their faith or what church they attend. This is in contrast to the States, where such statements are obligatory and will feature in the candidates' profiles. We would ask why the candidate was doing that. This was highlighted by Tony Blair being so coy about his faith, shying away from the question of whether he and the President prayed together, and keeping quiet about becoming a Catholic until he had left office.

[sandyRoe]

Could he have held the post of PM as a Catholic?

[Hypognosis]

Charles Carey, the others only have a point if they've got the proportionality calculated correctly.

You, yourself, said: -

//Yes but that is precisely the point ('People of all faiths') but that is not what is happening, because it is mainly the Christian faith that takes the flack. //

I am able to read that sentence and take it to be a sign that the Christian faith is still in the (numerical) ascendency, in this country. More of them, ergo, more examples, anecdotal or better, there are of incidences of them taking flak.

(And it is spelled flak, btw. It's a loanword). ;-b

All the same, on a point of pedantry, I'd like to know whether "persecution" is too strong a word? It's one thing for people to give you grief, verbal, hassle etc. but it's something else to have your church or home firebombed, or for your entire community to be rounded up and gunned down, like in Sudan, Syria or wherever.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, he could. The ban on Catholics holding public office was removed some time in the C19. Even atheists can hold public office, though it took a long fight by Bradlaugh for MPs to be able to sit without taking an oath before God.

[Hypognosis]

@FredPuli43

//keeping quiet about becoming a Catholic until he had left office. //

Would there have been any problems arising from this, with regard to gaining access to the Royal residence, on a weekly basis?

[THECORBYLOON]

There was doubt about Roman Catholics holding office as Lord Chancellor until legislation was passed in 1974.

[FredPuli43]

No, if he had had difficulty getting access to Buckingham Palace, it would have been as though the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 had never been passed. It was that Act that finally gave Catholics the right to sit as MPs. Don't think Her Majesty would have been bold enough not to grant him audience, as Prime Minister ! She would know a constitutional crisis, and bad public relations, when she saw them.

No, his coyness was all about the British attitude to declaring faith; we regard it as a private matter, not something to be advertised. This didn't stop Private Eye casting him as the vicar of St Albion's, but he couldn't do much about that.

A test may be: How many members of the cabinet can you, with certainty, ascribe a particular faith, or atheism, to ? Do you, with certainty, even know your own MP's faith and whether or not they are devoted adherents to it? It is just something that people don't talk about here.

[FredPuli43]

Really, corby? Wonder what the doubt could have been concerning Lord Chancellor. Catholics were barred from being lawyers for a long time, until 1791, and the Lord Chancellor was head of the judiciary, and himself a lawyer. But, historically, the Lord Chancellor was clergyman, a practice that stopped a long time ago. There may have been some residual doubt, on that account.

[THECORBYLOON]

FRED, it's not exactly a 'wordy' Act, Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974

1974 CHAPTER 25

An Act to declare the law relating to the tenure of the office of Lord Chancellor by Roman Catholics and to make provision for the exercise of ecclesiastical functions during any tenure of the office of Lord Chancellor by Roman Catholics. [9th July 1974]

Declaratory provision as to office of Lord Chancellor.



For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the office of Lord Chancellor is and shall be tenable by an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith.

Provision for alternative exercise of functions normally performed by Lord Chancellor.



In the event of the office of Lord Chancellor being held by an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to make provision for the exercise of any or all the visitational or the ecclesiastical functions normally performed by the Lord Chancellor, and any patronage to livings normally in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, to be performed by the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Crown.

Short Title


This Act may be cited as the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974.

[FredPuli43]

So, the Lord Chancellor has some rights in church matters. These would include the Consistory Courts, C of E courts for deciding purely church matters.

Note that the Act is worded to accommodate the possibility that the first alternate, the Prime Minister, is a Roman Catholic

[THECORBYLOON]

That would mean that there must be, by definition, at least one non-Roman Catholic in the Cabinet (or would they need to be C of E?)

[THECORBYLOON]

Reading it again, it looks like the Lord Chancellor could be any religion or none as long as he/she is not a Roman Catholic so the Cabinet can not all be Roman Catholic.

[FredPuli43]

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 stopped the Lord Chancellor from being head of the judiciary, from sitting as a judge, and from being Speaker of the House of Lords, all of which were historic roles, ex officio.

It is strange that Parliament didn't also remove his residual functions relating to the Church of England. For purely historical reasons, he has to be consulted before clergymen are appointed to some 400 parishes, but not the rest; the test is whether the parish is worth less than £20 a year, a figure itself suggesting the value is calculated by some ancient formula. He also oversees appointments to parishes in the Duchy of Cornwall, but only when there is no Duke of Cornwall or the Duke is under age. He also has to be consulted before appointments are made to the various Church of England courts. [ Wikipedia]

Why the Church can't be allowed to run its own affairs, as it does in appointing to the rest of the parishes, or without consulting anyone outside it in the other matters, is not obvious.

[LyndaB]

I'm a Christian, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I don't go to church as often as I should, but I can report that the four Christian (c of e, catholic, methodist and ulitarian) churches near us do very brisk business every Sunday. I don't ram my faith down anyone's throat. I don't care if people think I'm odd, but I certainly haven't been brainwashed. God has been very good to me.

[FredPuli43]

God has been very good to me, too, LyndaB.. Does he know I am an atheist, do you think?