Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
British Prime Minister
10 Answers
Can the office of PM be held by a person of any religion whatsoever?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Carol Anne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well Church and State are supposed to be seperate so I guess as long policy isn't directed by faith then there shouldn't be a problem.
There are no rules stating that the PM must be of one religion or another.
Besides the country is supposed to be ruled by the policies of a party not an individual, it's only since Blair came to power that the role of PM has taken on a more Presedential flavour.
There are no rules stating that the PM must be of one religion or another.
Besides the country is supposed to be ruled by the policies of a party not an individual, it's only since Blair came to power that the role of PM has taken on a more Presedential flavour.
Like an MP, the Prime Minister must swear an Oath of Allegiance. If he or she objected to oath swearing he or she could make a Solemn Affirmation instead.
While holding a copy of the New Testament (or, in the case of a Jew or Muslim, the Old Testament or the Koran) a Member swears: "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." The text of the affirmation is: - "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".
(http://www.parliament.uk/about/images/work/oat h.cfm)
The parliamentary oath has a long history. Members were, at one stage, required to take three separate oaths: the oaths of supremacy, of allegiance and of abjuration. Religious restrictions enshrined in the oath effectively barred individuals of certain faiths (e.g. Roman Catholics, Jews and Quakers) from entering Parliament for many years. The option of making a solemn affirmation in place of the oath emerged over time, different categories of people gaining the right at different times. The general right to affirm was established in 1888 following the case of Charles Bradlaugh, who was first elected to Parliament in 1880, but, as a professed atheist, was not allowed to take the oath or to affirm.
(http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-017.pdf)
While holding a copy of the New Testament (or, in the case of a Jew or Muslim, the Old Testament or the Koran) a Member swears: "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." The text of the affirmation is: - "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".
(http://www.parliament.uk/about/images/work/oat h.cfm)
The parliamentary oath has a long history. Members were, at one stage, required to take three separate oaths: the oaths of supremacy, of allegiance and of abjuration. Religious restrictions enshrined in the oath effectively barred individuals of certain faiths (e.g. Roman Catholics, Jews and Quakers) from entering Parliament for many years. The option of making a solemn affirmation in place of the oath emerged over time, different categories of people gaining the right at different times. The general right to affirm was established in 1888 following the case of Charles Bradlaugh, who was first elected to Parliament in 1880, but, as a professed atheist, was not allowed to take the oath or to affirm.
(http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-017.pdf)
Which country are you talking about Llamtron? Not the UK certainly. Church and state are inextricably entwined.
The Queen as head of state is head of the church of England, bishops are appointed by the prime-minister and gibven the nod from the Queen and faith schools are funded by the state!
I also find it strange that you think that Blair is the first PM to rule with an "I know best attitude" do you not remember the Eighties?
As for the question - I don't know of any law and although Disraeli was Jewish he was babtised Christian at an early age. Llyod George came from a strongly non-conformist background - his grandfather was a baptist minister.
I don't believe that we've ever had a Catholic PM although there is a certain amount of speculation that Blair may convert after he leaves office.
Certainly having a Catholic PM appointing CofE Bishops would be an interesting state of affairs which he'd doubtlessly want to avoid.
The Queen as head of state is head of the church of England, bishops are appointed by the prime-minister and gibven the nod from the Queen and faith schools are funded by the state!
I also find it strange that you think that Blair is the first PM to rule with an "I know best attitude" do you not remember the Eighties?
As for the question - I don't know of any law and although Disraeli was Jewish he was babtised Christian at an early age. Llyod George came from a strongly non-conformist background - his grandfather was a baptist minister.
I don't believe that we've ever had a Catholic PM although there is a certain amount of speculation that Blair may convert after he leaves office.
Certainly having a Catholic PM appointing CofE Bishops would be an interesting state of affairs which he'd doubtlessly want to avoid.
The Head of State is a Christian monarch crowned by an Archbishop in Westminster Abbey. British society could be said to belong to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and the majority of people in the UK identify themselves as Christian. The British monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England under the Act of Settlement 1701. The Prime Minister is not, but according to the Order of Precedence would rank below the Archbishop�s of Canterbury and York and the Lord Chancellor.
As religious disabilities were relaxed in the 19th century, politics was opened up to people of different faiths or none. See Charles Bradlaugh who was an atheist MP in 1880.
Since then (Oaths Act 1888), whilst MPs are required to take the oath or affirm, they must swear allegiance to the Queen (something Sinn Fein still refuse to do). Those that affirm are not required to hold anything.
However, the Church of England still maintains a constitutional position in the legislature. In modern times, however, the religious faith, or lack of it, of a politician is viewed as an entirely personal matter for that politician (unlike in the United States), in the UK the electorate tends to view a politician expressing excessive religiosity with suspicion. Freedom of religion is considered by many in Western nations to be a fundamental human right.
The Church of England has a law-making role in Britain. 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords and are known as the Lords Spiritual. They are thought to bring a religious ethos to the secular process of law. However, future reform of the House of Lords could see the Lords Spiritual made up of a variety of Christian denominations and other faiths to reflect the religious make-up of Britain. It is possible that we may have a prime minister of any or no religion, but constitutional conventions remain and these are based around the recognition of state religion.
As religious disabilities were relaxed in the 19th century, politics was opened up to people of different faiths or none. See Charles Bradlaugh who was an atheist MP in 1880.
Since then (Oaths Act 1888), whilst MPs are required to take the oath or affirm, they must swear allegiance to the Queen (something Sinn Fein still refuse to do). Those that affirm are not required to hold anything.
However, the Church of England still maintains a constitutional position in the legislature. In modern times, however, the religious faith, or lack of it, of a politician is viewed as an entirely personal matter for that politician (unlike in the United States), in the UK the electorate tends to view a politician expressing excessive religiosity with suspicion. Freedom of religion is considered by many in Western nations to be a fundamental human right.
The Church of England has a law-making role in Britain. 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords and are known as the Lords Spiritual. They are thought to bring a religious ethos to the secular process of law. However, future reform of the House of Lords could see the Lords Spiritual made up of a variety of Christian denominations and other faiths to reflect the religious make-up of Britain. It is possible that we may have a prime minister of any or no religion, but constitutional conventions remain and these are based around the recognition of state religion.
Oh I don't think you should shut up at all.
We really ought to disestablish the church of England.
There really ought to be no link between State and Church in this day and age - one of the things our American cousins got seriously right!
The Church of England is now so poorly attended that dioceses are merged and churches sold off to property developers to keep the whole effort ticking over.
As I recall Charles expressed a wish to be crowned as defender of the faiths (plural) before being slapped down (there really is no other term) by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It'll be interesting to see if he tries it again when he's King and the ArchBishop's boss.
Add that to the pressure that the CofE is coming under from the growing rift between the left and right and it looks more and more like a 400 year old solution that has been left irrelevant.
I very much doubt it'll survive another 100 years
We really ought to disestablish the church of England.
There really ought to be no link between State and Church in this day and age - one of the things our American cousins got seriously right!
The Church of England is now so poorly attended that dioceses are merged and churches sold off to property developers to keep the whole effort ticking over.
As I recall Charles expressed a wish to be crowned as defender of the faiths (plural) before being slapped down (there really is no other term) by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It'll be interesting to see if he tries it again when he's King and the ArchBishop's boss.
Add that to the pressure that the CofE is coming under from the growing rift between the left and right and it looks more and more like a 400 year old solution that has been left irrelevant.
I very much doubt it'll survive another 100 years
There really ought to be no link between State and Church in this day and age - one of the things our American cousins got seriously right!
There seems to be a covert link between church and state in the US where the religious right has far more influence than the CofE here - maybe it's better to have it out in the open where it can be ignored?
There seems to be a covert link between church and state in the US where the religious right has far more influence than the CofE here - maybe it's better to have it out in the open where it can be ignored?
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Business & Finance20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
