Government and Religion in Denmark

[LeFevre]

Government and Religion in Denmark and to a lesser (or greater depending on how this discussion goes ) degree other Monarchs and State religions in Europe and the world.


I've been following that other thread and I have seen Claus ask others to start a new thread if they want to discuss the Monarchy and State religion of Denmark. So here is the thread.


On the topic of this thread, the State religion and Monarchy of Denmark, how are they viewed by the Danish public?

Are they viewed as hold over cultural icons from the past?

If a Divine Argument (power or authority goes from God to Monarch and on down the culture's hierarchy) can't be used as a source of rights what does that say about the different Monarchies of the world? Does this make them empty seats?


I know nothing about Danish law and the workings of the Danish Monarchy, and next to nothing about British law and the British Monarchy. From discussions with Brits on here and on PalTalk (most of these conversations were a good time ago) I vaguely recall that now the Queen pays taxes but how she and her family make their cash I don't recall.

How are they viewed from the religious folks in these States?

Are there any current debates about abolishing the Monarch and State religions?

 

[crimresearch]

No true skeptic would ever subject themselves to the governance and taxation of a divinely empowered monarch, much less live in a country with a state religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

From the Danish Parliament's website:

Danish Democracy

Standing Orders Of The Folketing

The Constitutional Act of Denmark of June 5, 1953 (PDF)

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

FactSheets

The Queen and the Royal House

 

[LeFevre]

No true crimresearch uses the wink, but all true LeFevre's do.


I'm hoping to learn a bit about the relationship between Monarch and Govnernment in these States before this thread get splattered with what hit the fan, then after that I will enjoy watching the show. As long as I get my bread and circus. . .

 

[LeFevre]

Cheers on the links Claus. Some commentary would also be greatly appreciated. Off to check out links

 

[CFLarsen]

Cheers on the links Claus. Some commentary would also be greatly appreciated. Off to check out links

You're welcome. The links can probably tell you much more than I could possibly do.

 

[LeFevre]

From Claus' first link brings up something that I have had discussions with Brit net-friends.

The tripartition of power

In order to ensure a stable democracy and to prevent misuse of power, the supreme power in Denmark is, like in most other Western democracies, divided into three independent organs which control one another: the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers. The Folketing is the sole organ empowered to legislate. However, the Acts only take effect after receiving the Royal Assent. In practice, the Monarch is beyond the tripartition of power but Her Majesty The Queen or His Majesty The King formally exerts authority e.g. when appointing or dismissing Ministers.

The bolded part is the topic of those discussions. If I understand it and the British equivalent correctly, the head Monarch simply rubberstamps the will of the voters. But they do have the power to not do this. I understand that if they were to not go along with the will of the voters, the crap would hit the fan. But I still have unease about that, though I accept that if I were to have grown up in that society I would feel differently.

In a society where rights are a contract between Government and citizen, I wouldn't even want the option. But again I have a problem of having that lone person, outside the tripartation of governmential powers, chosen simply because of thier family.

The possibility that a future Monarch goes nuts and doesn't give Royal Assent, even knowing that the people will freak out and could rid themselves of royalty. . . The fact that it could be done and done legally (unless I have it wrong), well I wouldn't like that.

If the process is already a cultural type of ceremony, why not go on and make it that way legally?

 

[LeFevre]

From The Constitutional Act of Denmark of June 5, 1953

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF DENMARK
PART I

§ 4
The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established
Church of Denmark, and as such shall
be supported by the State.

Awwwww

I don't know what to say to that. I am distressed that a modern mythology has the backing of a nation, by law.

Is there any talk about removing this?

 

[egslim]

I'm no expert, but I think the non-issue is this: Yes a monarch has some kind of veto power, but at the same time their position is extremely vulnerable. If they start messing in actual political affairs they'll lose support. So they really can't afford to do so. Consider this, how often does the US president use his veto power? And his position is probably far safer compared to a monarchs'.

And if we go back to WWII, of the three branches of Dutch government only the cabinet evacuated to England. It was queen Wilhelmina who basically kept things going. While the head of cabinet actually defected...
Not to mention how it's nice to have some people to use for non-productive diplomatic journies.
I see a few nice bonusses and very little practical penalty.

 

[Leif Roar]

I don't know what to say to that. I am distressed that a modern mythology has the backing of a nation, by law.

Is there any talk about removing this?

(Talking from a Norwegian point of view here, which has a very similar state church to Denmark.)

Oh, there's always talk. It's rarely a serious issue, though - for the simple reason that it actually works quite well in practice. Yes, the fact that we have a state religion does of course let religion influence politics, but the opposite side of the coin is that it gives the politicians a way to influence the main religious institution.

As a result (that is, I believe it to be a result of the above - I could be wrong,) there is little radicalism or fundamentalism in the state church and the clergy tend to be apolitical in the performance of their duties.

As with the monarchy, we keep the state church because - well, the darned thing seems to work all right, so it just doesn't seem worth the bother to get a new one.

 

[shanek]

I don't know what to say to that. I am distressed that a modern mythology has the backing of a nation, by law.

And this is from 1953, so not exactly an ancient document from a less enlightened time...

Some other things that bug me:

§3
Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King. Judicial authority shall be vested in the courts of justice.

So no separation of powers as far as the legislative is concerned.

I actually like the Congress Robert Heinlein set up in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: The House passes laws (2/3rds majority required to pass them); the Senate repeals laws (only 1/3rd required to repeal a law). Now, that's how you do it!

But I digress...

§5
The King shall not reign in other countries except with the consent of the Folketing.

Um, shouldn't the people in those other countries have something to say about this, too?

(At least the King is sworn to uphold the Constitution in Part II §8; this is good. But the King still isn't elected and it's passed on by heirs.)

§13
The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of government; their responsibility shall be defined by statute.

Okay...how is §8 to be enforced, then?

Let's move on to the religion thing...

Part VII

§67
Citizens shall be at liberty to form congregations for the worship of God in a manner according with their convictions, provided that nothing contrary to good morals or public order shall be taught or done.

Oh, lovely...no acting "contrary to good morals." Geesh!!!

§69
Rules for religious bodies dissenting from the Established Church shall be laid down by statute.

Mmmm-hmmm...

Oh, this one from Part VIII §1 is just rich:

(2) A person shall be deprived of his liberty only where this is warranted by law.

And many others are filled with such lovely clauses as:

§ 72
The dwelling shall be inviolable. House search, seizure, and examination of letters and other papers, or any breach of the secrecy that shall be observed in postal, telegraph, and telephone matters, shall not take place except under a judicial order, unless particular exception is warranted by statute.

No, I don't think I'll be moving to Denmark anytime soon...

 

[shanek]

Oh, there's always talk. It's rarely a serious issue, though - for the simple reason that it actually works quite well in practice. Yes, the fact that we have a state religion does of course let religion influence politics, but the opposite side of the coin is that it gives the politicians a way to influence the main religious institution.

Um, how are either of those a good thing?

 

[CFLarsen]

And this is from 1953, so not exactly an ancient document from a less enlightened time...

Again, you exhibit an amazing lack of historical knowledge. Almost 2/3rds of the original constitution has survived from the first in 1849, this being one of them.

So no separation of powers as far as the legislative is concerned.

Read the documents, you dimwit. The regent signs the laws and officially appoints the government. This is entirely theoretical, since the Queen is merely presented with laws and the new governments, and she simply accepts them.

I actually like the Congress Robert Heinlein set up in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: The House passes laws (2/3rds majority required to pass them); the Senate repeals laws (only 1/3rd required to repeal a law). Now, that's how you do it!

But I digress...

Yes, read some real history, instead of fiction.

(At least the King is sworn to uphold the Constitution in Part II §8; this is good. But the King still isn't elected and it's passed on by heirs.)

Kings are rarely elected, and only if there isn't an heir. E.g., King Christian I, King Christian VII and King Christian IX were elected.

Again, read some history and stop making such an incredible fool out of yourself.

Okay...how is §8 to be enforced, then?

What is the problem?

Oh, lovely...no acting "contrary to good morals." Geesh!!!

As established by laws, precisely as in the US. Save your misplaced scorn.

Mmmm-hmmm...

What, no sarcastic comment here? That was actually good, wasn't it?

Oh, this one from Part VIII §1 is just rich:

Why is that "rich"? It prevents people from being jailed without reason, something that you in the US do not enjoy.

And many others are filled with such lovely clauses as:

How is this different from the Patriot Act?

No, I don't think I'll be moving to Denmark anytime soon...

You are most welcome. I think it would be good for you to get a glimpse of what the outside world (of the US) is like.

 

[shanek]

[skipping Claus's personal abuse, as usual]

Kings are rarely elected, and only if there isn't an heir. E.g., King Christian I, King Christian VII and King Christian IX were elected.

So? We don't have any offices at all that are set up this way.

What is the problem?

That the King under your Constitution has unchecked power. Or else, who's going to enforce his oath?

As established by laws, precisely as in the US.

Once again, you show your profound ignorance. Our Constitution gives the government NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to legislate morals and ACTIVELY PROHIBITS it from interfering in this.

What, no sarcastic comment here? That was actually good, wasn't it?

Yeah, if you like tyranny...Here, we enjoy freedom of speech and religion, which includes the right to dissent with the current government and any church.

Why is that "rich"? It prevents people from being jailed without reason, something that you in the US do not enjoy.

First of all, you're a LIAR, as the Fifth Amendment does exactly that. Second of all, you're a LIAR, as the clause doesn't do that at all; it SPECIFICALLY PERMITS the government to infringe on your rights!

How is this different from the Patriot Act?

It's your CONSTITUTION, Claus. Stop making excuses.

 

[CFLarsen]

[skipping Claus's personal abuse, as usual]

I point out that you are wrong. Several times. You see this as "abuse".

So? We don't have any offices at all that are set up this way.

So? Countries are different. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are of lesser value than the US.

That the King under your Constitution has unchecked power. Or else, who's going to enforce his oath?

The regent does not have "unchecked" power. How did you reach that false conclusion???

We can abolish monarchy by vote.

Once again, you show your profound ignorance. Our Constitution gives the government NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to legislate morals and ACTIVELY PROHIBITS it from interfering in this.

Can gays marry in the US? No? Then, you have legislation that interferes with morals.

Yeah, if you like tyranny...Here, we enjoy freedom of speech and religion, which includes the right to dissent with the current government and any church.

We got that here, as well. And our government does not actively support one religion over another.

First of all, you're a LIAR, as the Fifth Amendment does exactly that. Second of all, you're a LIAR, as the clause doesn't do that at all; it SPECIFICALLY PERMITS the government to infringe on your rights!

Again, you live in your dream-world. How many people are being jailed at Gitmo?

It's your CONSTITUTION, Claus. Stop making excuses.

I am not making excuses, I am asking you a question. How is this different from the Patriot Act?

 

[Grammatron]

Again, you live in your dream-world. How many people are being jailed at Gitmo?

Well since none of them are American citizens and/or residents it doesn't really matter as far as this discussion goes.

Can gays marry in the US? No? Then, you have legislation that interferes with morals.

Actually the answer is yes since Massachusetts is still part of the USA.

How is this different from the Patriot Act?

Well for one Patriot Act WILL expire and many portions of it have been outlawed or have been deprived of funding thus rendering them useless.

 

[shanek]

I point out that you are wrong. Several times. You see this as "abuse".

Wrong, liar. You called me ignorant, a dimwit, etc.

So?

So you can't use the nature of a King as a defense for having one.

The regent does not have "unchecked" power. How did you reach that false conclusion???

Just like I quoted:

§13
The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of government; their responsibility shall be defined by statute.

We can abolish monarchy by vote.

Quote the part of your Constitution that gives you the power to do this.

Can gays marry in the US? No? Then, you have legislation that interferes with morals.

The Constitution gives the US government no power whatsoever to license marriage or place any restrictions on it whatsoever.

We got that here, as well.

Not according to your Constitution.

And our government does not actively support one religion over another.

Your Constitution gives it the power to do so.

I am not making excuses, I am asking you a question. How is this different from the Patriot Act?

Because it's your CONSTITUTION!!!! Stop this dishonest evading. Our USA PATRIOT Act is one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation to come down the pike since the Alien and Sedition Act. Hundreds of municipalities and several states are already resisting enforcement of it.

Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!!

 

[Thanz]

And our government does not actively support one religion over another.

Uh, dude, don't you have an official state religion? I don't see how that can not be supporting one religion over another.

 

[phildonnia]

...If they start messing in actual political affairs they'll lose support. So they really can't afford to do so. Consider this, how often does the US president use his veto power? And his position is probably far safer compared to a monarchs'....

How so? They don't lop off heads anymore do they?

 

[Jocko]

Denmark sucks. No wonder Claus is such a hateful little bitch.