Antidisestablishmentarianism
Nearly a decade ago I was delighted to use the word "antidisestablishmentarianism" as the headline in a Wall Street Journal taste editorial about the Church of England. Now I see that the prime minister has weighed in with a speech on Britain as a Christian nation. It is an interesting argument, and of course by "Christian nation" he does not mean a confessional state that rules out other religions. It parallels an argument advanced by Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, whose concept of "established church" is that of "a host who greets you, introduces you to others, and makes you feel at home."
I imagine the PM's address gained great attention in Britain but seems to have made barely a dent here. It was pegged to the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, and is more about the unique impact of the Authorized Version on the making of British society than a plea for the Christian faith. But he makes some arguments that I'm sure some people will have a hard time taking sitting down:
The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.” Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love… pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities… these are the values we treasure.
Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them.
Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths.And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour.
I think these arguments are profoundly wrong.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
NOW they tell us.
Jan '11
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
That raises a common question -- since when is praise for one man, or one idea, or one culture ... an insult to all others? Praise is more available than air; you can distribute as much as you want without depleting the supply.
If the Bible tells us to work hard and love our neighbor, it's hardly a suggestion that no other book does the same. It simply includes those virtues for us, not exclude them from all others.
To think that praise for one is insult to another is the mercantilist theory of virtue. Damn the saints, for they've stolen our fair share!
Jun '10
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
Good for Cameron. Could it be he's growing a backbone?
Mar '11
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
It is sad that the leader of the Church of England (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is the one who should have given this speech, but instead talks about Sharia Law and supports Occupy St Pauls.
Kudos to Mr Cameron - he deserves more than Mr Delingpole gives him.
Update: It occurs to me that the actual head of the Church of England is the Queen - oops.
Edited on Dec 22, 2011 at 10:25amOct '10
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
Not that I noticed. It involves neither football, nor (Murdoch) journalists hacking celebrity phones, nor Europe.
You can see how irrelevant it was by looking at the Guardian coverage - by their 'religious affairs correspondent'. Who knew they even had one? Still - here she is.
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
A separate issue is the translation. Methinks Mr. Cameron, inadvertently, is also making a good argument for being extremely conservative when it comes to revising language that has secured a firm foothold in the culture.
Dec '10
Re: Antidisestablishmentarianism
Bill, I'm glad you are quoting Rabbi Sacks. He is brilliant and a great leader.
Now for the bad news. No, not really bad. It's just that we have a more complicated and difficult situation here in America vs Briton. They have the C.ofE. and we have the 1st Clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
As I have mentioned in some of my other posts, the 1st Clause comes in two Phrases. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or Phrase One. "(Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion)" or Phrase Two. Although, Christianity is definitely the majority religion of America and was extremely relevant to this country's founding, we are forced to view our existence through the lense of the Constitution.
For most of my lifetime this has been all about Phrase One. The left has used Phrase One "The Establishment Phrase" to damage this society mercilessly. It is our job to discover how we can use Phrase Two "The Exercise Phrase" to hit back!
It's not easy for Rabbi Sacks but it is less difficult then this.