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
I kind of love how you actually feel sorry for the Norwegian king ... he CAN just abdicate, you know.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I mind the monarchy, though! Well, I do, but on the other hand Olav was pretty cute.
Then again, so was Stalin.
(Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent for Stalin?)
Well, of course, he CAN, but one CAN also jump of a cliff. I am not saying those two are comparable, I am just appalled by the fact that there is a law stating/defining his own personal opinion. I am only advocating that he should get to choose for himself, as it is his freedom of mind and religion that is in question. I bear no illusion, however, that we will have an agnostic or atheistic king in the near future though. But Freedom of Religion/Thought ftW!
ReplyDeleteIt has recently been brought to my attention that the Norwegian king is actually the head of the Norwegian church, which would seem to legitimise the claim of having him adhere to Christianity. Nevertheless, as I believe it to be wrong for a religious leadership to be inheritable, my opinion remains the same.
ReplyDelete>I am not saying those two are comparable
ReplyDeleteThen, come on, why say them at all.
It's an archaic rule, perhaps, but, as Imma wrote, it's a condition placed upon any person that seeks to hold the office of King to which, it shall be noted, only a VERY VERY select group of people may apply. Shall we feel sorry for the millions of other good-little Lutheran Norwegians who never get a chance? If the Crown Prince feels accepting the job of King is placing an undue strain upon his chosen faith, he can duly decline.
My point is, don't put the cart before the horse: the person BECOMING King must be Lutheran before taking the role; random Norwegians are not forced into the Lutheran church. :)
>don't put the cart before the horse: the person BECOMING King must be Lutheran before taking the role; random Norwegians are not forced into the Lutheran church.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I had not thought about it from that perspective, and it thus seems more legitimate. I still feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea, though, as it is a fairly pernicious deal. But then again, I would only be one of those 'random Norwegians'.
It thus does not seem so terrible, but the subject which then arises is the question of whether or not the King should be the head of the Norwegian Church. I have personally always found the origins of the Anglican Church peculiar, and I am not sure if I am particularly fond of having the national (now symbolic) head also being the head of the country's main religious institution. Heck! I am personally even against the principle of a Pope (though for different reasons).