This post is inspired by fiona patten's comment (link):
"Yep we [the Australian Sex Party] are not going to be all things to all people- but hopefully we can make some positive change."
Prince Charles, who will in time be King of Australia as he will be of the United Kingdom, wants to take the opposite tack. He wanted to be Defender of Faiths when he becomes King, rather than Defender of the Faith, that is, a particular faith (originally the Roman Catholic faith). That proved controversial, particularly with the Church that he would be the formal head of, but no longer the defender of. So, he's had a new idea (link).
In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.
However, there would be huge obstacles to overcome before the Prince can fulfil his wish which he has discussed with some of his closest advisers. It would require Parliament to agree to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act which came into law after changes were made for the Queen's Coronation in the same year. A senior source told The Daily Telegraph: "There have been lots of discussions. He would like to be known as the Defender of Faith which is a subtle but hugely symbolic shift."
As a monarchist, I acknowledge that there are now no circumstances in which a king or queen of Australia would overrule a Governor General or a Prime Minister, but I think the sovereign is valuable as a traditional symbol above partisan politics. Being the head of the winning political party does not put your picture on the money or on pictures on the wall. There are honors that the scufflers in the grubby brawls of politics, however successful, don't get to ascend to. They are reserved for someone who doesn't even live in the country. And the monarchy is a reminder of tradition in a country where there is no Bill of Rights and where it's tradition, culture and unwritten convention that have, however imperfectly, nourished and protected freedom.
If the monarch isn't willing to be a symbol of something in particular, I think that's an argument against his usefulness.
I don't think you can be a useful symbol of "faiths" or "faith" (in general) in the sense that it seems Prince Charles wants to be.
Faith is specific: it's trust and belief in someone or something, or some group like a pantheon. It's not just a feeling of high-mindedness combined with a desire to be all things to all people. Jesus or Osiris, Krishna or Buddha, Isis or Joseph Smith, Muhammed or Odin, pick one, or with Richard Dawkins none, but if you have faith, you should be willing to choose and defend that choice.
Between Christopher Hitchens (abrasively atheist) and his younger brother Peter Hitchens (actively and solidly Church of England), does Charles have a side, at all?
There's a moment in United 93 (2006) (link), in Chapter 18, an hour and thirty minutes in, where people on the plane are praying: the jihadists to Allah, and the others to Jesus (plus, presumably, Jews praying to their God). What side, in particular, would the Defender of Faith be on? On the side of the faithful, of course. On the side of those praying, and with their causes.
That doesn't cut it. The title "Defender of Faith" is not serious. It's not even symbolic defense of anyone or any cause.
I can't see the benefit, the positive change to be brought about. If you are a member of some tiny minority religion, such as an Australian Aboriginal persisting in your ancient tradition or a reconstructionist British druid trying to revive yours, the King will be no more a symbol of the defense of your rights than he ever was. To the extent that jihadists were emboldened to believe that yet another symbolic defender of a religion other than Islam had crumbled, you would be less secure in your rights.
We may come to a time where the Australian Sex Party is serious, in the sense of being willing to say what it stands for and commit to defending it, and the king of the country will not be serious, in the same sense.