IMO it's a way of taking the focus off the open letter criticizing Cameron for his comments about the UK being a Christian country.
An alliance of public figures including scientists, novelists and politicians have accused David Cameron of ‘fostering division’ within the UK by claiming that Britain is still a “Christian country”.
In an open letter the authors note that while they respect the Prime Minister’s right to religious beliefs as well as the fact that these will “necessarily affect his own life as a politician”, they believe that his characterization will have “negative consequences for politics and society”.
Well they are taking an oath of loyalty to a monarch and to the Christian god, whether that reflects their position or not. That's why I don't like it. People are being asked to give their loyalty not to the population that they aim to serve but to hereditary power and an unproven concept. In that way, their position is assumed if you see what I'm saying.
Well they are taking an oath of loyalty to a monarch and to the Christian god, whether that reflects their position or not. That's why I don't like it. People are being asked to give their loyalty not to the population that they aim to serve but to hereditary power and an unproven concept. In that way, their position is assumed if you see what I'm saying.
They can affirm when they pledge allegiance. The Houses of Parliament are stuffed with people who have all taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen who is titular Head of the Church of England. Not everyone who takes the oath is an Anglican. Presumably their desire to be our lawmakers outweighs any misgivings that they might have. And of course, as a body they can control the monarch which provides a balance.
They can affirm when they pledge allegiance. The Houses of Parliament are stuffed with people who have all taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen who is titular Head of the Church of England. Not everyone who takes the oath is an Anglican. Presumably their desire to be our lawmakers outweighs any misgivings that they might have. And of course, as a body they can control the monarch which provides a balance.
You seem to be ignoring the point of principle here. Whether these people are Anglican monarchs or not, they are being made to swear an oath to the Christian god and the Anglican monarch. This is something that is not reflective of the make up of our society nor is it really appropriate for the role in my opinion. Lawmakers etc. should be swearing an oath to serve the population rather than one woman or one god of a particular faith.
You seem to be ignoring the point of principle here. Whether these people are Anglican monarchs or not, they are being made to swear an oath to the Christian god and the Anglican monarch. This is something that is not reflective of the make up of our society nor is it really appropriate for the role in my opinion. Lawmakers etc. should be swearing an oath to serve the population rather than one woman or one god of a particular faith.
No I am not. I am merely pointing out how our system works and has worked for hundreds of years.
They do not all swear before God, some affirm.
Politicians are elected by the people who want them there. The monarch has no say in that. Presumably the electorate does choose people to serve them having listened to their views.
it is established practice and all politicians of whatever party adhere to it. It might be changed but I can't see how or why. Ambitious politicians accept the way things are and so does our legal system.
If a huge number of atheists started up a political party and campaigned to do away with the Queen as Head of State then I can't see any of them being elected.
Anyway I am happy with the status quo and would be happy for changes that evolve in time.
So we have established that you cannot identify a single benefit for retaining it - other than it's the status quo. At one time slavery, sex and race discrimination were the status quo. Unfair religious discrimination should go the same way as those other archaic practices.
They can affirm when they pledge allegiance. The Houses of Parliament are stuffed with people who have all taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen who is titular Head of the Church of England. Not everyone who takes the oath is an Anglican. Presumably their desire to be our lawmakers outweighs any misgivings that they might have. And of course, as a body they can control the monarch which provides a balance.
The non religious are often quite blase about such oaths as they believe them to be entirely meaningless. For that reason they should be done away with and replaced with something more inclusive and representative of British society.
So we have established that you cannot identify a single benefit for retaining it - other than it's the status quo. At one time slavery, sex and race discrimination were the status quo. Unfair religious discrimination should go the same way as those other archaic practices.
You are anti-monarchy and anti-religion and I am not. I am happy with our current system, you are not. I don't have to justify my position to you and it would be a waste of time anyway.
I have repeatedly said that change by evolution would be acceptable to me.
People can make oaths by affirmation leaving God out of it and many do.
Well they are taking an oath of loyalty to a monarch and to the Christian god, whether that reflects their position or not. That's why I don't like it. People are being asked to give their loyalty not to the population that they aim to serve but to hereditary power and an unproven concept. In that way, their position is assumed if you see what I'm saying.
What do you think about the oath people are asked to give in court when they have to say....
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." ?
I think some politicians should take an oath of silence, or at least put their brains into gear before they open their mouths
You are anti-monarchy and anti-religion and I am not. I am happy with our current system, you are not. I don't have to justify my position to you and it would be a waste of time anyway.
I am not anti anything in terms of this debate. I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion about the monarchy in particular - I hold no strong views about it.
I'm not anti religion - I believe it should be a matter of personal principle not one of public policy. I'm certainly an atheist - but all that means is that I don't believe in god. I don't presume to tell anyone else what to believe, but I do think that all citizens whatever their belief systems should be treated in the same way when it comes to civic life.
I see absolutely no justification for state funded services to have any religious connotations or associations. Our history is a matter of record - but a modern democracy should be secular and protect the rights of all of its citizens equally, not just those who happen to belong to the right club.
You are anti-monarchy and anti-religion and I am not. I am happy with our current system, you are not. I don't have to justify my position to you and it would be a waste of time anyway.
I have repeatedly said that change by evolution would be acceptable to me.
People can make oaths by affirmation leaving God out of it and many do.
You haven't even attempted to. You're basic justification is 'that's the way it is so deal with it.' My proposed change provides both for monarchist or republican, atheist or religious by removing the assumption of the current oath.
What do you think about the oath people are asked to give in court when they have to say....
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." ?
I think some politicians should take an oath of silence, or at least put their brains into gear before they open their mouths
That's fine because the religious bit is optional and the message to tell the truth is appropriate to the setting.
Politicians shouldn't have an oath of silence either. After all, we need to weed out the really thick ones before they actually get to do anything! Not that we've managed that successfully...
I am not anti anything in terms of this debate. I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion about the monarchy in particular - I hold no strong views about it.
I'm not anti religion - I believe it should be a matter of personal principle not one of public policy. I'm certainly an atheist - but all that means is that I don't believe in god. I don't presume to tell anyone else what to believe, but I do think that all citizens whatever their belief systems should be treated in the same way when it comes to civic life.
I see absolutely no justification for state funded services to have any religious connotations or associations. Our history is a matter of record - but a modern democracy should be secular and protect the rights of all of its citizens equally, not just those who happen to belong to the right club.
Fine. That's what the forum is for. Expressing views.
The non religious are often quite blase about such oaths as they believe them to be entirely meaningless. For that reason they should be done away with and replaced with something more inclusive and representative of British society.
I think that every atheist M.P. who affirms is being as sincere as those who swear before God. I believe that they are dedicated to serving their constituents and wider society.
I think that every atheist M.P. who affirms is being as sincere as those who swear before God. I believe that they are dedicated to serving their constituents and wider society.
I agree they are sincere about those things - and prepared to overlook the hypocrisy in respect of god as it has no consequences for them.
You haven't even attempted to. You're basic justification is 'that's the way it is so deal with it.' My proposed change provides both for monarchist or republican, atheist or religious by removing the assumption of the current oath.
That's fine because the religious bit is optional and the message to tell the truth is appropriate to the setting.
Politicians shouldn't have an oath of silence either. After all, we need to weed out the really thick ones before they actually get to do anything! Not that we've managed that successfully...
According to this until Politicians will not get paid until they have either taken an oath of allegiance or make an affirmation.
Parliamentarians
Under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, members of both Houses of Parliament are required to take an Oath of Allegiance upon taking their seat in Parliament,[12][13] after a general election, or by-election, and after the death of the monarch. Until the oath or affirmation is taken, an MP may not receive a salary, take their seat, speak in debates or vote. The usual wording of the oath is:
I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:
I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.
I'm just waiting for Farage to come out and say he's a Catholic CofE next. He's already distasteful enough to vote for. He might as well add religion into his mix.
Either he or his father converted so that Disraeli could become PM. So effectively Disraeli was not "Jewish" when PM, he was an Anglican. Miliband would be the first atheist Jewish PM if elected.
Comments
The nearest I can find is this -
He defended Britain as a Christian nation, despite the rise of secularism. “We are really lucky in having the Church of England as an established Church. It is a great institution, not just in the spiritual faith and nourishment that it gives to lots of people, but also the good work it does in communities.”
- where he DOESN'T describe the UK as a Christian country
I'm not sure where the comment came from but there is no mention at all of Miliband saying 'the UK is a Christian country' in this report.
http://jewishnews.co.uk/ed_miliband_israel/
IMO it's a way of taking the focus off the open letter criticizing Cameron for his comments about the UK being a Christian country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/david-cameron-fostering-alienation-and-division-by-calling-britain-a-christian-country-9272961.html
Well they are taking an oath of loyalty to a monarch and to the Christian god, whether that reflects their position or not. That's why I don't like it. People are being asked to give their loyalty not to the population that they aim to serve but to hereditary power and an unproven concept. In that way, their position is assumed if you see what I'm saying.
Yeah, I can. Those professions should be swearing an oath to serve the population, not hereditary privilege and the god of a particular religion.
They can affirm when they pledge allegiance. The Houses of Parliament are stuffed with people who have all taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen who is titular Head of the Church of England. Not everyone who takes the oath is an Anglican. Presumably their desire to be our lawmakers outweighs any misgivings that they might have. And of course, as a body they can control the monarch which provides a balance.
You seem to be ignoring the point of principle here. Whether these people are Anglican monarchs or not, they are being made to swear an oath to the Christian god and the Anglican monarch. This is something that is not reflective of the make up of our society nor is it really appropriate for the role in my opinion. Lawmakers etc. should be swearing an oath to serve the population rather than one woman or one god of a particular faith.
No I am not. I am merely pointing out how our system works and has worked for hundreds of years.
They do not all swear before God, some affirm.
Politicians are elected by the people who want them there. The monarch has no say in that. Presumably the electorate does choose people to serve them having listened to their views.
So we have established that you cannot identify a single benefit for retaining it - other than it's the status quo. At one time slavery, sex and race discrimination were the status quo. Unfair religious discrimination should go the same way as those other archaic practices.
The non religious are often quite blase about such oaths as they believe them to be entirely meaningless. For that reason they should be done away with and replaced with something more inclusive and representative of British society.
You are anti-monarchy and anti-religion and I am not. I am happy with our current system, you are not. I don't have to justify my position to you and it would be a waste of time anyway.
I have repeatedly said that change by evolution would be acceptable to me.
People can make oaths by affirmation leaving God out of it and many do.
What do you think about the oath people are asked to give in court when they have to say....
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." ?
I think some politicians should take an oath of silence, or at least put their brains into gear before they open their mouths
I am not anti anything in terms of this debate. I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion about the monarchy in particular - I hold no strong views about it.
I'm not anti religion - I believe it should be a matter of personal principle not one of public policy. I'm certainly an atheist - but all that means is that I don't believe in god. I don't presume to tell anyone else what to believe, but I do think that all citizens whatever their belief systems should be treated in the same way when it comes to civic life.
I see absolutely no justification for state funded services to have any religious connotations or associations. Our history is a matter of record - but a modern democracy should be secular and protect the rights of all of its citizens equally, not just those who happen to belong to the right club.
You haven't even attempted to. You're basic justification is 'that's the way it is so deal with it.' My proposed change provides both for monarchist or republican, atheist or religious by removing the assumption of the current oath.
That's fine because the religious bit is optional and the message to tell the truth is appropriate to the setting.
Politicians shouldn't have an oath of silence either. After all, we need to weed out the really thick ones before they actually get to do anything! Not that we've managed that successfully...
Fine. That's what the forum is for. Expressing views.
I think that every atheist M.P. who affirms is being as sincere as those who swear before God. I believe that they are dedicated to serving their constituents and wider society.
I agree they are sincere about those things - and prepared to overlook the hypocrisy in respect of god as it has no consequences for them.
According to this until Politicians will not get paid until they have either taken an oath of allegiance or make an affirmation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28United_Kingdom%29
So they are hardly going to refuse to do so.:D
Farage worships his own mirror
Members of Sinn Fein did exactly that. However as the quote you give shows they do not have to swear by God.
I don't underestimate him. He really is a slick operator and a really skilled self-publicist.
So what does an Atheist Jew get up to ?