en.wikipedia.orgPosted Jun 10, 2011, 1:42 AM UTC
[deleted]
Exactly. The main reason it persists in the UK (the monarchy that is) is that the monarch does not exercise power anymore. If the UK had remained a functional monarchy it would have become a republic a long time ago.
That's because they made it a Constitutional Monarchy. And their royalty literally have no power. They're just a figure head for the country. The person with power similar to our president is the Prime Minister (leader of parliament)
Sooooooo like what I said then? ;) I'm a kiwi, we have our own Prime Minister, and Queeny holds the official title "Queen of New Zealand" as well as her more known role as the UK monarch. Separating from the monarchy has been debated here, but most of us figure 'why change what ain't broken'.
I am curious how many here on r/atheism are aware of the "Divine right of Kings"
I'm "aware" of it, yes.
how is it possible to be an Atheist and a supporter of such a monarchy?
I should think that it would not be.
No belief in God = no belief in "Divine Right".
There are probably atheists who think that there's logical naturalistic justification for a monarchical system of government.
I was going to post exactly this. Thank you for saving me the time.
Huh?
I'm an Atheist and I support a monarchy. That's because constitutional monarchy is a better form of government than a republic.
Constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government in the world because it limits the governments power.
Monarchs serve as the head of state of a country. That means they have a legitimate ceremonial and political role. This separates the head of state from the head of government (the Prime Minister) who actually runs the country and is a politician.
If you actually look at nations which have constitutional monarchies and compare them to republics you can see that the monarchies are more democratic and fairer than the republics.
The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg and Japan are all constitutional monarchies and have some of the best standards of living for their citizens and the lowest corruption in their government.
7 of the 10 most democratic and corruption free nations are constitutional monarchies and most republics suffer from internal strife and corruption.
The fact is more and more political scientists are starting to consider Republics as a archaic form of government. They just do not offer the same benefits to their citizens that a constutional monarchy does and they are usually more undemocratic.
I support no such thing.
Why would I, or any Atheist for that matter?