It has recently been brought to my attention that the Norwegian king is actually obliged by law to be a proclaimed Christian (Lutheran). I already knew that he along with the rest of the Royal Family are the only ones not allowed to have any official political opinion, a notion I support, yet this seems particularly cruel and totalitarian. The law against any voiced political opinion, which include a conduct which does not suggest partiality, is necessary to keep the Royals above political meddling. I will not discuss why I, and Norway as well, deem that necessary. This, however, is as said, only laws concerning conduct. The king can, of course think whatever he likes, as law cannot limit thought. But is this not exactly what it is doing with a law obliging Christian adherence? The ones that made me aware of this law states that as the king represents Norway, a Christian country with Christian traditions, it is only natural that he himself is Christian. They also point to that is is in no way forced to any religion. He adhere to whatever religion he likes, but only if he abdicates the throne. But in what way is that a real choice? But I do not mean do digress to far away from my main point. Even considering that the king is a representative for a Christian Norway, I do not believe that any law should be able to force a certain philosophical or religious opinion on anyone. One might argue that he only has to be Lutheran officially, but I will not myself defend such a preposterous and blasphemous notion.
I feel the need to specify that I am of course not against having a Christian king, nor a Muslim one for that matter, only against any law obliging adherence. No one's mind should be subjected to law, not even the king's. As an analogy, racism is not outlawed - only acting upon it is.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief" extract from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18
