Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 15

The Church of England, the Sovereign, and the Prime Minister

According to this site, "Her Majesty the Queen…appoints archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals on the advice of the Prime Minister" (emphasis mine). As far as I know, there are no restrictions on the religion of the PM. I'll probably be blasted for asking for crystal-balling, but I assume that the question has been asked before (outside WP:RD), and scholars (or pundits, at least) have pondered: if a non-Church-of-England Prime Minister comes into office, would he or she still provide advice on such appointments? — Nelson Ricardo (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Appointment of Church of England bishops led me to this document which does somewhat address the possibility of a Roman Catholic PM and mentions Jews in passing. I guess the case of a hypothetical Muslim PM would be interesting, as there is no mention of this religion in the document. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been non-Church of England Prime Ministers. Most recently Gordon Brown was Church of Scotland (as were Balfour and Campbell-Bannerman). Others have been nonconformists: James Callaghan and David Lloyd George were both Baptists, and Neville Chamberlain was a Unitarian. There are several others who could be mentioned. However all Prime Ministers have been Protestants. No change to the appointment system for Bishops has come because of the religion of the Prime Minister; it would be up to the Prime Minister to insist on a change. Note that the choice of a Bishop is now only technically a choice because, although the Crown Nominations Committee submits two names, it states which one is the first choice, and the Prime Minister since 2007 has made it clear he will always appoint the first choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that several previous Prime Minsters have not been Anglicans, including Henry Campbell Bannerman and Gordon Brown, who were Presbyterians, and David Lloyd George, who was raised and sometimes practiced as a Baptist but whose biographer says he was agnostic; Lloyd George was instrumental in the disestablishment of the Anglican church in Wales. Your question illustrates the two-edged nature of a church being established - while it grants the church influence and political power (the CoE's practical power being greatly diminished now), it opens the church up to tinkering by the monarch (cf Wars of the Three Kingdoms) - much of the pressure to disestablish the Church of Scotland came from within Scottish Presbyterianism (cf Free Church of Scotland (1843–1900)). And it doesn't take much crystal ball gazing to imagine a PM from a religion other than Christianity - Michael Howard, who is Jewish (his article doesn't mention it, but both The Guardian and the Daily Mail agree (!!) that he attends St. John's Wood Synagogue) was with 3% of winning the 2005 General Election. How he would have discharged the PM's role in advising the Queen about bishops is unclear - the paper you found indeed suggests that there's no impediment to his doing so. Like a lot of questions about the British Constitution, the answer seems to be "we'll fix it when it breaks". 87.115.241.113 (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I seem to recall that Margaret Thatcher, (a Methodist?) tried to block the appointment of David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham, but found that she had been presented with a Hobson's choice. As with much of the British Constitution, apparent power and real power are two different things. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph says Thatcher, while raised Methodist, "moved away from Methodism and became an Anglican". 87.115.241.113 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, she certainly was buried as one. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a Jewish prime minister would not be allowed to advise the Queen about appointment of bishops, under the Jews Relief Act 1858. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ed Milliband must be so disappointed ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

To avoid controversy, Ed Milliband may very well follow that specific law presuming it's still valid, but I think it's questionable whether it would apply to him. The law says it applies to someone "professing the Jewish religion, directly or indirectly" and as our article reflects after long argument, while Ed Milliband may be and consider himself Jewish, it's more difficult to say he 'professes the Jewish religion, directly or indirectly'. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I can't imagine that this is still current legislation as the previous section prohibits Jewish people from being made Lords Lieutenant, which is demonstrably not now the case - see Jew Named Queen Elizabeth’s Lord Lieutenant for Glasgow. Alansplodge (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The part about Jews not being made Lords Lieutenant (which only applied to Ireland anyway) was repealed in 1871. But the part about Jews not advising the crown about appointments to the Church of England and Church of Scotland is still on the books. The part of the Jews Relief Act 1858 which is still law is the part shown at [1] other than the part in brackets, which was repealed in 1980. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I looked but didn't see! Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When you're dealing with a state church, and not a church state, you have to remember that the religion of the people deciding what the state church does is very nearly irrelevant. Isn't there some famous saying about how unwise it would be to allow actual believers to decide how the Church of England is run? Politicians make decisions about the Church of England for political reasons, as seen with the women bishops, not because they have any particular theological conviction, or even because they particularly care what actual Anglicans believe or do. 86.139.158.74 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that [2] suggests one reason why Tony Blair may have held off on conversion beyond the everyday controversy that may have caused given the uneasy relationship between Catholicism and governing the UK as well as the possible political risk to him, is because of possible conflict in his role appointing bishops. On the other hand, it's not like it was a super secret he felt the greatest affinity to the Catholic church even before his conversion [3] [4] [5] [6]. Which perhaps highlights an important point. Appearances as much as anything may matter here hence why the role of someone who's nominally Anglican but really mostly considers himself Catholic, whatever other Catholics may think of that [7], is fine. But if he formally completes his conversion, perhaps not so much. As has been pointed out above, the actual involvement is limited anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW I just realised most of the above discussions primarily relate to concerns by other parties towards a person of a certain non CoE religion being involved in the selection of their bishops etc. It's worth remembering the person themselves may be opposed or at least uncomfortable with being involved in the process due to their religious beliefs (which may include disbelief). Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that a typically British workaround for this conundrum would be for the PM to delegate this duty to his Deputy or some other high ranking minister who would then wield the rubber-stamp on the PM's behalf; but as 87.115 wisely says above, it won't be fixed until it's broke, so we'll have to wait and see. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

White people in Togo & Benin.

OP blocked as likely troll account
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do many white people live in Togo or Benin? Are they are native whites in these countries? --Führernochamlebenist (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Demographics of Togo says less than 1%. I"ll let someone else look for Benin. Mingmingla (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for this chance of showing up my research habilities. According to demographics of Benin, it's less than 1%. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC) It always disturbs me when I see questions based on dividing humans up based on skin colour alone. The Togo article says there are 37 different native "tribes". (Another problematic word.) Unless there was a freakishly even distribution of people among those 37 groups, simple Maths says that at least some of them would almost certainly be smaller in number than those whose skin happens to be paler. So in a sense, despite what some might think the answers above imply, "whites", whatever that means, are not the smallest ethnic grouping. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC) You are right, even if it's not the question whether whites are the smallest group. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Now, why... why, for God's sake, would a single purpose account with the name "The Fuehrer is still alive", asking about white people, bother you in the least? See live report at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:UAA μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Why would we suppose that after 1 question, it is single purpose? Indeed, the question is kinda of trivial, and troll-y, but it had an answer. And how are we supposed to know what this user's name or |μηδείς or whatever means? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You were not being personally accused of anything, Osman. Indeed, you inserted your comment between mine and the one I was (indirectly) responding to. I do indeed assume users here are familiar with "user contributions" and Google Translate, and how to follow a link to Usernames for Administrative Attention. The user's account was created today, his name, beginning with Fuehrer, is perfectly legible German, he's posting on the Help desk his praise for the Third Reich. What else should I say? μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Nothing to see here. Move along. --Jayron32 02:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)