Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

Nice try - the Queen remains politically neutral (mostly).

 

The Queen has always gone to great pains to stay objective, independent and unbiased, Swords. The Prince of Wales will get a bashing if he becomes political when he becomes king.

The Pope gives guidance on stuff of conscience like abortion, contraception etc but when did it ever tell Ireland whether or not it should stay in the EU?!!

 

That's true Matty. But the head of State also being the head of the Church means that the COE is inextricably linked to politics because the moral well-being of the nation stems from that premise. You can't be more political than the constitutional position of a Country. Therefore if the hierarchy of the COE deem it necessary to direct the people in a certain way, it is their right to do so.

The Pope is not Ireland's head of State bro

 

There seems to have been a surge in the Green vote. I hope you are going to provide some graphs and charts to show how the vote has moved, Stan.

 

True, Swords, but he's head of your church. Our head of church, defender of the faith, is the Queen as sovereign and she's impartial.

 

But the COE doesn't represent the Queen's (neutral) views so the link is broken.

The head of the church thing is nothing more than a ceremonial position that was forcefully introduced by the monarchy itself many years ago anyway (to suit and unify its own position of power) and has reached it's current, meaningless, status as the view of the divine right of monarchs (or whatever it's called) has been gradually forgotten (or reality sets in).

I doubt you'd find many devout Christians that recognise royalty in such a religious capacity.

I think the church should take a moral stance although it's credibility is enhanced if it uses modern statistics and expert opinion rather than dusty manuscripts written in far away lands. They shouldn't interfere with political and economic debate unless they are intrinsically linked though.

Just my opinion.

 

He is?

That's a contradiction in terms. You cannot be defender of one faith (COE) yet also impartial. But that's neither here nor there.

Look, I'm not having a go at the position of the Church at all. On the contrary, I'm saying it has every right to express its views, especially as its the established Church of the Country. Whether you want to listen to them or not is entirely one's own decision. I'm basically at where Stan is.

As an aside, if I had to choose a Christian church, I'd choose high church Anglican (COE). It seems very chilled out, non-dogmatic, non-bigoted and pretty inclusive.

As for Prince Charles, I think he'll make a very good King. He's a progressive thinker and a man who seems to be very much in step with the modern World. He's also a likeable auld skin

 

Just a slight change of tact. I would be interested to know which party people trust most with the economy and its growth?

 

The Queen is constitutionally impartial - a process that started way back with Magna Carta eight hundred years ago. Her ability to speak out on politics in any kind of partisan way would be a breach of constitutional law.

 

Conservatives. As far as big money goes, Labour are very good at spending money and giving it away. They cannot, and never have been able to, 'do' business on a large scale. Their ethos makes them ideologically unable to let business run itself, and let people take their own decisions.

 

You and Matt are 100% correct Chaz. But given that the COE is the established church of the nation, does that not give it the moral authority or at the very least a right to have an opinion on matters concerning the well being of the people?

 

I agree, I accept I hang my mast to the blue colours and I dont agree with alot of what they do but I have run a business for 13 years and it terrifies me if Labour have charge of the purse strings again

 

Good comments. Actually, Prince Charles wants to be defender of the faithS. I don't think that's been agreed yet by the establishment.

There is a practical issue for the church here imho. Their current position is essentially left of the Labour Party. They want an end to Trident. That puts them in a camp with the SNP. Even the Greens haven't come out this far, just that they want a public debate on it. So potential young vicars have to buy into this far left philosophy, before dedicating their working life to it. This will mean that more and more new vicars will have more extreme views, that generally don't reflect their congregation. It's happening already. There's a decline in number going to church. Numbers are down hugely on, say, 30 years ago.

 

He is quite likeable (in a toned down Duke of Edinburgh kind of way) although he's a bit of outspoken on various topics (architecture for one) and his own brand of food is sold exclusively in Waitrose so I'm not sure how in touch with the modern man he really is.

Although Princess Anne seems like the Sarah Palin of the British aristocracy so it could be much worse.

 

The Queen can give opinion, but she has to remain strictly neutral in what she says. That restricts what she can say in reality to a few words at the opening of Parliament.

The COE should be the same, imo. I have no problems with them giving views on matters involving the British people, even when those views have a political element to them. What they should NOT be saying is 'don't vote for A, vote for B' because this sets them up as a quasi-political body of their own, and they should be focusing on their faith, their congregations, and the spiritual health of the nation they serve.

 

Anne's way down the list now. She's like, 12th in line, I think. getting further and further away from the seat of irrelevancy (politically speaking)

 

I'll just pop out to get some crayons and sticky back paper. And some nails for the swingometer.

Re the church stuff, I think the debate is giveng the CoE a profile that its actual influence scarely merits.

It's a bit embarrassing that we haven't got around to seperating church and state in the UK.

 

I'm no fan of religion, but I think all religions have a duty/obligation to speak on moral issues - it would be pointless them giving guidance of how their followers should live their lives and then leaving gaping holes that correspond to modern living.

They do need to be informed and responsible with that though - no more Pope condemns condoms disasters please.

To redress the balance for my personal sanity though, I would give proportional time to each religion. Agnostics (and atheists) get the most, then Christianity, Islam etc until you get to Yoda as leader of the Jedi faith, then then the rest until you get to Jehovah's Witnesses who can try to yell a couple of words as the reporter cuts back to the studio.

 

It was just a reference to her deep seated desire to napalm badgers and trebuchet grey squirrels off mountain tops.

I tend to bore myself and head off on tangents sometimes.

 

The Napalm Badgers. Yeovil's finest death metal group...