As freethinking sceptics and scientifically minded secularists we have no cause to believe in the supremacy of supernatural deities, nor the existence of spirits and ghouls, souls or an afterlife. 

By extension, is not the notion of hereditary privilege and divine right - as embodied by the British monarchy - also anachronistic and absurd, in the extreme, in an country that claims to be a democracy?

Is it not the height of iniquity to expect the citizens of a nation to pay out of their own pockets to perverse a select (and unworthy) few, in regal splendour, in perpetuity?!

Is it not ridiculous that this unelected elite stands as advocate for religion in an increasingly secular state, preserving old historic enmities whilst introducing new ones?

Isn't it time Britain became a true democracy? Without this sycophantic recourse to antiquated notions of heredity?

Further reading at http://republic.org.uk/ a politically neutral pressure group for an Elected Head of State.

As my preamble suggests I am very much in favour of abolishing the monarchy and all heredity forms of governance and would like to know whether this thought is common among atheists and non-theists. 

I concede that it is perhaps not top priority for most us, as we campaign against religious privilege and pseudo-science taking a hold in Britain, but I would say it has to be acknowledged that this one piece nonsense has and will continue to have lasting effects on the prevalence of proper science and secularism in this country; and should be challenged wherever and whenever possible.

Tags: Atheism, Monarchy, Secularism, civil, democracy, elected, head, heretidary, non-political, of, More…privelege, republic.org.uk, rights, royalty, state

Views: 41

Replies to This Discussion

Shame on you. Don't you realise that the Royals are directly decended from God?
What was I thinking?! :'-O
Forgive me Beavis!!!
Hmm, well I'm certainly for stopping them from having political influence outside that of any other citizen; as for disproportionate wealth, I'm not actually sure what amount is proportionate. Certainly people should not be expected to give money to some family, estate or other simply on the grounds that they are an aristocrat.

They might well own land, but one would have to investigate the basis upon which the came to acquire it? If it was a legitimate purchase then perhaps they should be permitted to keep it, but then there's the conundrum of where did they get the funds by which to purchase such property in the first place and whether that was ill gotten loot?

On the whole, its far simpler to focus on the Royals and Hereditary Peers; people who actually have political influence for no reason other than their "birth-right" (and we can throw the Bishops out while we're at it).

As for minor aristocracy, well I'm against it in principle, but I'm not overly certain on how to expunge them from society (without recourse to a guillotine :S). At the moment they seem less of a problem. Topple the royals and the rest wont have all that much to stand on, I guess? There not much point in prattling on about heredity and ancestry when the monarchy's been disposed.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service