I don’t know our prince first in line to the throne. But the Queen does, and I can see why she’s living so long. She is the head of the Church of England. Charles on the other hand, wants to be the defender of all faiths. This leads us to a constitutional problem, but not my problem for today. What gets me is his lack of understanding and the idea that all religions are good, and any people who cause harm in the name of, or because of their religion are simply not doing it right. This leads me to my main point. He’s completely ignored the people of no faith who are free thinkers and tend not to be another sheep in a flock.

He claims that Christians are being persecuted in the Middle East, and churches are being burned. He’s sharing platforms with leaders of other religions who are doing this. This is a point I am stretching more than a little, especially when he’s sharing a forum with the good religious, and not the bad ones.

He mentioned the the three main Abrahamic religions getting along together and having so much in common. Outwardly, they may all be men and women of God, but they are fundamentally at odds with each other, and those scars run deep. And then there’s the divisions within the religions. These are differences which will never be repaired.

So, I suppose his plea was to these religions to get their act together and do what they need to get their devout followers to tow the line and behave.

No mention was made of the people who are at greater risk, and cause little harm. These are the non-believers, atheists, and apostates. These are the people at greater risk. The devout and faithful will make sure of that.

Charles is way behind the curve on this. A recent study stated that 70% of 17-25 year olds were of no religion. Or perhaps he’s being convinced that it’s the lack of religion in the country that is the cause of society’s ills. Maybe, religion, if not be encouraged should be enforced. That’s how these peaceful religions have survived so long, so why not do that again?

I’m not suggesting Charles, even if he had the power would force people in to religion. But I am suggesting that he would be swayed by arguments that would lead there. After all, the United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland is technically a theocracy. Not in the way, Iran or Saudi Arabia are, but the head of state is head of the Church of England.

With a little bit of luck, days of theocracy are well behind us, but we must be vigilant and for the Prince of Wales to decide to ignore the harm inflicted on the non religious is careless in the very least. I was happy when he just talked to plants, criticised architecture, had several women on the go, and was just a privileged nutter hiding in plain site.