Position Statement on Monarchy
Starting from the basic premise of atheism – it is not true that God exists – It does not follow that there should be no monarchy. It is not self-contradictory for an atheist to be a monarchist or for a theist to be a republican, as most theists in the world are. Indeed, it is not self-contradictory for a monarch to be an atheist.
However, it does follow, from the same premise, that a state’s – and, therefore, its head’s – authority should not be founded on the Theory of Divine Right, irrespective of whether that head of state is a monarch or a president. The Irish constitution provides an example of the latter:-
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
For that reason, Atheism UK pressed for and obtained the following in the 2011 Dublin Declaration on Secularism and the Place of Religion in Public Life:-
The sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any god or gods.
The British monarchy abandoned the Theory of Divine Right at the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689 makes it clear that its authority is derived from the people and not from God. Therefore, Atheism UK holds no position, one way or the other, as to the existence of the British monarchy per se. This is a matter for individual members who can, if they choose, join organizations that campaign for its abolition[1].
It is not the British monarchy per se but the following, of its statutory conditions of tenure, that offend against the principles of atheism and must be abolished:-
Anglican Succession
The Act of Settlement 1701, provides[2]:-
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established[3].
Coronation Oath
The same act, provides[4]:-
Every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations
The objectionable element[5] of the oath[6] is:-
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The oath must be administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, or any other bishop of the realm appointed by the monarch for that purpose[7].
Accession Declaration
The Bill of Rights 1689[8], the Act of Settlement 1701[9] and the Accession Declaration Act 1910, in combination, require the monarch to make the following declaration on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament after the accession[10]:-
I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
All these objectionable conditions stem from the position of the British head of state as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which is the established church in England. This, again, is irrespective of whether that head of state is a monarch or a president.
Atheism UK holds a robust position in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England, which necessarily includes the British head of state ceasing to be its Supreme Governor. The abolition, of the Anglican succession, the religious element of the Coronation Oath and the Accession Declaration, are subsumed into that aim.
[2] Section 3.
[3] There appears to be no sanction against breach, unless the monarch is a Roman Catholic in which case the Crown is forfeited to the next protestant in line (Section 1 of the Act of Settlement 1701 and Section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1689). The prohibition, against the monarch marrying a Roman Catholic, is in the process of being repealed.
[4] Section 2.
[5] The other elements are secular.
[6] The form of it is prescribed by Section 3 of the Coronation Oath Act 1688. However, the third sentence, “Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?”, has since been added without statutory authority.
[7] Again, there appears to be no sanction against breach, the monarchs refusal to take the oath.
[8] Section 1.
[9] Section 2.
[10] Or at the coronation, if earlier.
The monarch is, at present, head of the Church of England. That role must surely exclude atheists from supporting the monarchy. There is perhaps one proviso; if the atheist is using their support as an ulterior motive to ensure that atheism receives recognition on a par with Christianity. Whether the Church would accept such an attempt is quite another matter.
Most certainly, if an atheist is also a secularist then support for the monarchy must be out of the question because of the monarch’s twin roles of Head of the Church (faith) and Head of State (politics).
Does the monarchy support atheism? If there are any changes afoot it is to change the role of the monarch from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faiths. Such a role would, regrettably, bring increasing conflict as so many faiths are incompatible with each other. It is most distinctly possible, given the hostility towards atheism of, especially, Catholicism and Islam, that atheists will be increasingly excluded not only from access to the monarch but also from politics in general.
To believe that the main concern of the monarch is the welfare and security of the country is to misunderstand the monarchy. The main concern of the monarch is the welfare and security of the royal line. Only if the welfare of the country coincides with the welfare of the monarch’s family is the country, relatively, safe. Don’t agree? As an example, consider that the ex-King Edward VIII was willing to hand the country to Hitler in order to regain the Crown. Truth is, history shows us time and again that English monarchs have been the most selfish and ambitious people imaginable. Be sure that, even today, the monarch will do anything to ensure that the Royal Family continues, unaffected by change in politics or religion.
Unless the monarchy becomes secular, hardly likely considering the expressed views of the heir to the throne, I see nothing but ever-increasing hostility towards atheism from the Crown.
Whilst I agree with Roger Hart that the Monarch must have a conflict of interest with her being the head of the Church. I am more disturbed by the proposal to change from being defender of the Faith to Defender of Faiths. Whilst we, as atheists, can see the ludicrousness of this proposal, especially given the thousand years and more history of Jew baiting and Holy wars with the Muslims. Misogyny to women, burning of witches. Taking of lands of other peoples, as done by previous and current peoples. The Queen however has made clear (in her Christmas Speeches) that we now live in a multicultural society, and must be more inclusive in our lives.
Unfortunately her Son Charles, when he becomes King, in marrying a Catholic, will want a uniting of churches (well at least Protestant and Catholic). Unfortunately all the other denominations and Religions will then insist on being, not only recognised, but also with an equal say in all things ‘spiritual’. This as we know will multiply the interference of the Religious in Education, in Politics and in peoples personal lives, especially the bedroom. This will definitely herald a quicker return to the dark ages than we are currently experiencing. With the peoples rights being eroded, as we see Big Brother take over.
So, for instance, we can expect to see demands from the Muslims for ‘Shariah Law’ and its so-called ‘honour killings’, where the victim of a crime become the accused instead of seeing the weakness of the perpetrator as being the real criminal. No thank you. Keep your bronze-age (Biblical) and stone-age (Quranic) morals out of modern society.
All religious ‘Holy’ books are not good enough guides for a modern society. So much contained in their pages has to be ignored to live a decent life, otherwise we would be taking disobedient children to the edge of communities and stoning them! Both the Bible and the Quran contain atrocious moral actions, both condoned and commanded by the various ‘Gods’. For those who doubt this, just visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com and the sites sub sections on the book of mormon and quran…
So a system that bases its government on the teachings of one or more holy books will drag us backwards. Science has given humanity more in the last 150 years than Religions gave us over thousands of years. Unless they shake off their dreadful past and come into the 21st century, then we are better of without them.
Ultimately a secular society is the only fair system for all, including the Religious. At Present, I support this Monarch despite her Religious duties. She has been a stable influence through all the changes we have seen, both in this country and abroad.
I think Atheism should lead the way in being inclusive, otherwise we are no better than the Various Religions and their dreadful record of Human rights abuses.
I think the basic problem is that both the Monarchy and the State need people to believe in God because it gives their subjects the hope of an afterlife. How could the Military survive and get soldiers to die heroic deaths in battle if they didn’t believe in a glorious afterlife? Also how could the obvious disparity between the super rich and greedy Bankers and Politicians survive, unless people were convinced that a better life were waiting beyond the grave! As Napoleon said – It is Religion that keeps the poor from murdering the Rich!
If the Monarch became secular (highly unlikely), this could hopefully have a roll on effect with removal of those dreadful waffling Bishops in the House of Lords…
Anyway, long live the Queen. It also delays Charles becoming King. As nice a person as he is, I can’t see the good stuff the queen has done being continued by him. Lets hope I am wrong.
I’m a republican. I disagree with monarchy purely because I do not agree that anyone should be granted any special privileges simply because of the accident of their birth, i.e. which womb they came out of. As Roger Hart says, the only concern of the monarchy is the monarchy.
All the oaths that the armed forces, the police, M.Ps , local councillors, judges, magistrates, etc.etc.etc. have to say to enable them to carry out their duties are oaths of allegiance to the monarch and their family. Nothing is said about about the democractically elected government or the laws of the country, just the monarch and their family.
All that said, I don’t see a correlation between atheism and republicanism. Yes, there is a problem with the monarch being head of the established church (disestablish the church, simples), yes, there is a problem with being a defender of faith (insist that that be a private matter for the monarch, simples) but it is still possible to be a monarchist and an atheist. Trying to say, as others I have met in the past have done, that you HAVE to be a republican to be an atheist is rather silly. After all, atheism is just a non-belief in gods, it doesn’t say anything about political systems.
People often forget that the queen is only head of the Church of England and is directly opposed to Rome and Catholicism due to the selfishly destructive efforts of her weighty ancestor Henry VIII, resulting in the founding of yet another “one and only” religion based on the acts of subjective adultery and whimsical summary executions, just to mix it up a bit.
I agree with Greyhound that a change to defender of faiths will be a rather foolish gesture at best, and at worst a blank cheque to clamouring religious nut jobs, which we sadly have in abundance.
I served 8 years in the Royal Air Force and proclaimed the oath of attestation (which I still have a copy of), but at not point did I consider the afterlife a prize to be achieved in death for the Queen. Service to the society of England, the defence of freedom and the pride of one’s family and friends was the common feeling I had and witnessed. Although in Napoleon’s day one did as one was bloody well told! However the quote from him you posted sums up the fact that religion is nothing more than a cosh the rich and privileged beat the peasantry round the head with to keep them outside the walls, only now some of the peasants no longer fear that cosh and openly challenge it.
Vive la Atheist Revolucion!
On the subject of leadership, it can be securely stated that one would wish to be led by someone of sound mind and equitable alliance. This may sound trivial in ambition but once the world of inheritance is observed, much dogma prevails.
For example, who is to recompense the ill will of past wars in any court that deals in litigation prospecting? Ok maybe, for recent injustices, but what law sanctions time limits – over say the inequalities secured centuries ago – together with the poverty and strife they still suffer the consequences of today? The privilege of current peoples often is an inheritance of past misdemeanors, in one format or another, both religiously biased and power sanctioned from places historically loaded with theocracy. The systems we reference are inherently skewed and born of ages prior to rights to a freethinkers education.
The above seems to me to be at least a double thinkers leadership as well as that of their peoples: few want to give up what resources they have to the will of unknowns.
1) We have secured power via theistic strata in the past therefore why ought it not work for us again?
2) Most systems of power are still reliant on dogma and inherited privilege and alternatives seem , in the least, revolutionary and less certain to secure power for those presently stationed there.
So, whilst I wholeheartedly condone none theistic systems of social cohesion, I see those placed in the higher ranks of most of our planet are in fear that a purely humanitarian enterprise is likeliest to lower their&kin positions in future generations and as such harden their hearts against drawing back the curtains that reveals evolution as our only helper.
It’s a strange inequality the past has cooked up that enslaves the weakest to yet another lifetime – in the shadows of the great oppressors of myths in world religions – but that also lends the powerful to insist this “Pray continue.”
This combination is one I loath somewhat: that power insists those who reveal truth are its enemies ipso facto. Something about chains and cramped decks of galleons fills the minds eye.
The truth about equality is probably that it requires too many to sacrifice what they currently have in order to redistribute what others have no access to. And there are no guarantees it stops there!
This equation is one, I think, keeps the powerful cooking up deferrals to after death litigation aka myth gods et al.
We who know different can likeliest count ourselves unwilling enemies to most power structures due lack of conspiracy with delusions.