VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|HarryR|DATE|1357397464|CONTENT|I&#039;m sort of inclined to agree that the CofE shouldn&#039;t accept change that&#039;s in contradiction to their scripture just because it&#039;s politically convenient. After all if their scripture isn&#039;t authoritative that why is it relevant at all? Undermining this view is the adaptability it has shown on other matters that were once beyond the pale, such as woman priests. Ultimately, it will accept anything that the people in the decision making bodies will accept. It&#039;s just a club. 

The real problem is that it&#039;s the established church and as such has privileges and influence and media attention beyond it&#039;s demonstrated support by society at large and doesn&#039;t even provide a better mousetrap or faster broadband services in return.

What are the Constitutional implications of disestablishing the CofE? They must be deep rooted and I imagine would require a new Constitution declared not just an simple amendment. 

Presumably the monarchy&#039;s justification for &#039;ruling&#039; is that god approves and the Govt of the day rules in the name of the monarch and we avoid the strait-jacket and benefits of a written Constitution. 

British lawyers have designed Constitutions for many other countries, but not their own. If our model is so good, why have other countries not developed it themselves or adopted it? Has our model performed noticeably better or worse than others used by OECD countries?|IP-ADDRESS|141.105.192.108|MODERATIONFLAG|