I often wondered in the past what might have happened if (RC) Iain Duncan Smith had become a conservative Prime Minister but he didn't even last as Leader of the conservative Party.
I thought,though perhaps wrongly, that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not allowed to be RC (in case he sent all the money to Rome)
I often wondered in the past what might have happened if (RC) Iain Duncan Smith had become a conservative Prime Minister but he didn't even last as Leader of the conservative Party.
I thought,though perhaps wrongly, that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not allowed to be RC (in case he sent all the money to Rome)
Might you be thinking of the PM in their role as First Lord of the Treasury?
I often wondered in the past what might have happened if (RC) Iain Duncan Smith had become a conservative Prime Minister but he didn't even last as Leader of the conservative Party.
I thought,though perhaps wrongly, that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not allowed to be RC (in case he sent all the money to Rome)
Might you be thinking of the PM in their role as First Lord of the Treasury?
Or perhaps the Lord Chancellor, given the role of Keeper of the King's Conscience?
I remember when John F Kennedy became the Democratic nominee for president, there was concern he would be taking direction from the Pope. In one of his first speeches as the nominee, he disavowed any connection with the papacy when it came to future decisions of the state.
I can't and it's none of my business to do so, comment on the issue about the US Constitution apart from saying that I get the impression that in the 1770s its take on religion was that the state should be non-denominational rather than not Christian.
First off, the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, so it's about a decade later than "the 1770s", whatever Vivek Ramaswamy may say to the contrary.
As with most blanket statements about what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution thought, this one is not entirely accurate. On the one hand you had the accommodationists like George Washington and John Adams, who did believe the federal government could encourage religious belief in a non-discriminatory, non-denominational manner. Then you had the separationists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who believed that the federal government had no business discouraging or encouraging religiosity, even in the blandest, most anodyne, most generic terms. As with most questions about what the Framers really believed, the answer is usually "it's complicated".
And of course by 1797 you have the senate unanimously approving the Treaty of Tripoli, which famously includes the phrase "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
Mormon kids were excused from school one afternoon a week so they could go to Primary. There was a lot of pressure on us non-Mormon kids to go with our Mormon peers to their Primary.
Could you kindly explain to us Brits what a Primary is??
It’s a Latter-day Saints children’s organization: LDS Primary.
(The average American living where there isn’t a strong Mormon presence wouldn’t know what it is either, I suspect.)
Religious education remains a compulsory part of public education in Britian, and Canada, does it not? Not sure about other commonwealth nations.
Education about religion, yes. Instruction in religion, no.
This seems the right formula to me. I learned about religion in high school (and the fundamentalists tried to shut it down, but failed), but was never indoctrinated.
In Britain, "Religious Instruction" (teaching the tenets of one religion) has long been replaced by "Religious Education" (teaching about world religions). Things may be different in Catholic schools (I don't know how they operate); and of course in private schools run by religious organisations which do not have to follow the National Curriculum.
And of course by 1797 you have the senate unanimously approving the Treaty of Tripoli, which famously includes the phrase "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
Interesting historical note on the Treaty of Tripoli: the Arabic version of the treaty does not include this phrase. Of course the English language version of the treaty (which would have been the version read and ratified by the Senate) does include it.
Religious education remains a compulsory part of public education in Britian, and Canada, does it not? Not sure about other commonwealth nations.
Yes, RELIGIOUS education, not CHRISTIAN education in the sense of being taught a catechism. ALL major faiths are covered. Not, of course, pertinent to the USA. Cannot comment on the USA perspective but I would think half the list, at least, highly dubious in UK terms.
Comments
I thought,though perhaps wrongly, that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not allowed to be RC (in case he sent all the money to Rome)
Might you be thinking of the PM in their role as First Lord of the Treasury?
Or perhaps the Lord Chancellor, given the role of Keeper of the King's Conscience?
First off, the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, so it's about a decade later than "the 1770s", whatever Vivek Ramaswamy may say to the contrary.
As with most blanket statements about what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution thought, this one is not entirely accurate. On the one hand you had the accommodationists like George Washington and John Adams, who did believe the federal government could encourage religious belief in a non-discriminatory, non-denominational manner. Then you had the separationists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who believed that the federal government had no business discouraging or encouraging religiosity, even in the blandest, most anodyne, most generic terms. As with most questions about what the Framers really believed, the answer is usually "it's complicated".
Thank you!
This seems the right formula to me. I learned about religion in high school (and the fundamentalists tried to shut it down, but failed), but was never indoctrinated.
Interesting historical note on the Treaty of Tripoli: the Arabic version of the treaty does not include this phrase. Of course the English language version of the treaty (which would have been the version read and ratified by the Senate) does include it.
Yes, RELIGIOUS education, not CHRISTIAN education in the sense of being taught a catechism. ALL major faiths are covered. Not, of course, pertinent to the USA. Cannot comment on the USA perspective but I would think half the list, at least, highly dubious in UK terms.