Prince Charles as King of a Multi Faith country

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Storeman Norman, Jun 4, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Lord Carey, apprently echoing the views of the heir to the throne, feels that the next Sovereign should reflect the multi faith beliefs of his kingdom by altering the wording of the next Coronation. In simple terms he would like him to become 'Defender of Faith' not 'Defender of the Faith'. This is not a new revelation from the Sunday Telegraph but I am intrigued by the following:
    Oh really. I'm quite sure that the many Church of Scotland / Wales, Unitd Reformists, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists etc etc of this kingdom at the time might have something to say about that.

    The Roman Catholics might also have an issue with the following laudable aspiration of the neu arbeit:
    Perhaps the Home Office might like to consider the current ruling, enshrined in law, that no Roman Catholic may ascend to the throne. Surely that is discriminatory, on the grounds of religion, is it not?
  2. Charles has claimed that he wants to be 'defender of the faiths' or something similar for so long now that it's not a shock or in any way meaningful for most. Of course as the (titular) head of the Church of England his syncretic (introduction or practice of other beliefs or religions into another faith or religion) behaviour raises a number of questions.

    It has been mooted that this, and other aspects of the man, has been on of the reasons that the Queen (who has a faith) will not pass on the baton. She has long taken an interest in the protection, care and function of the CofE as her duty and her faith.

    The sadness is that this is still a 'christian' country in that its laws (now confused), morality (diminishing) and values (work that out for yourself) are all derived from, support and are supported by Christian belief and practice. At a time when some are calling for areas of the UK to be governed under sharia law I feel that the last thng that is needed is a move away from our traditional beliefs and laws.

    To become a secular state would be folly considering those I have seen. To try to become a multi-anything state causes oppression for some of those within it.

    My feeling is that a state church, complete with the problems that it brings and bears, in a country which it regards itself as 'christian' as an indicator of the influence upon it should have a titular head who is both a believer (how can you defend what you don't believe) and brings a certain integrity.

  3. Well, it is a changing society but with those changes in our society not all has been good.

    The changes also include an increase in violence and in race hate. Perhaps the media wasn't in a position to manipulate as they are in this day and age but there comes this little used word FAITH.

    In our christian faith we are taught to be polite and helpful, friendly and caring. Today there are few people who hold this as an important part of being english, scottish, welsh or british.

    We are having this country and our religious system dismantled and for what????

    Perhaps I'll bin church this morning and go and stab some lad playing football......
  4. Elizabeth is/was my queen. The thought of her eldest son as the next king I find most disturbing.
    He's not real and the treatment of his first wife was a disgrace. IMHO he has failed in the run up for the top job in Britian.
    I canot see the Old Commonwealth accepting him, He will be a disaster, from before day one.
    He should do the Honerable thing and go live with his wife who heems happy with, allowing Young Williams to make a clean start.
    The thought of President Blur frightens me as President Maggei would have done for so many.
  5. P.S.You left out Northern Irish or is that because you are discussing Christianity and not religion??
  6. I thought leaving Ireland, either north, south or united, out of the argument the best thing to do and has no bearing on the allegiance of N.I.


  7. me n bee, I'm not a religious man, I am in fact an agnostic (purely because there are so many religions that they can't all be right). However I am British, I was born here, my parents were born here as were their parents. Am I any less British because of my lack of 'faith'? I should point out though that I don't agree with changing the wording of the coronation. I might not be a Christian, but I understand fully that these are all part of British tradition and should be left as they are. In the same way, I don't believe in God but that doesn't mean that I'd seek to change the national anthem.

    I think this is someone clearly trying to do something on behalf of people who haven't asked/don't want action taken.
  8. DR, you are right, my wording is wrong. Perhaps I should have written that we, in Britain, have christian values and abide by them. This doesn't mean to say that each and every person is a christian.
  9. Might as well...seing as the churches are mainly empty these days.
  10. I take issue with the link between Christianity and values such as honour, respect - "polite and helpful, friendly and caring" - Christians do not have a monoploy on these virtues, one can possess them without being Christian and, in fact, if the history of the Christian Church was one of unbroken demonstration of these virtues, their churches might be rather more full on a Sunday morning. It has always struck me that Christ represented everything that was true, holy and wonderful - and then had to leave it in the hands of a bunch of men who did what men do - start jockeying for position and creating a hierarchy where they made damn sure they were at the top.

    I think Charles wish to be Defender of Faiths is inspired - the Church of England, worth institution it may be and containing many good people, has no resonance for me.
  11. Indeed Christians do not have a monopoly on those virtues listed and as rightly stated, other can exhibit them without being Christian. The problem is that the majority of the society in which we live proclaims itself to be non-religious and yet, evidenced by our society, these virtues are in short supply. Could there be a correlation I wonder?

    As an obervation aside from this debate - church attendance is growing and decline (which I think was good for a number of reasons) has been halted every statistical analysis since 2000 had reported the same

    Defender of all faiths is not inspired for it is destined to be defender of no faiths. Look at our society which strives for equality for all and yet delivers equality for those who fit the profile or hold the same liberal attitudes - this is a sad road indeed.

    A few thoughts that are buzzing in my bonce as spin-offs and not part of the debate:

    Everyone tells me that they are good and don't need God and yet when they screw up they choose to blame God for their predicament - grossly unfair, if I was God I'd join a union ;-). They look to Christians to be what they are not and pillory them for it when they are as 'do gooders' and scream at them when they are human and fail. Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God! This is a very distinct difference - religion is blind and restrictive whereas relationship frees and enables.

  12. "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God" - the best description I have heard yet, and one I couldn't agree more with! A really excellent line. That is what I have - a relationship with the Divine - I don't need any human being between me and the Divine, I don't need buildings and I defintely do not need dogma. I wouldn't disagree either, with the assertion that many of the hurts and ills in human societies is symptomatic of a loss in faith, whether it be in God (whatever you perceive Him or Her to be...), human nature, Govt or whatever. Peoples' expectations of what they wanted their lives to be seem not to be met in many cases and so people will, naturally, try and find other solutions (that's human nature - nothing wrong with that). Christianity had a chance to be something real to ordinary people, and it just didn't step up to the plate.

    Where my crushing disappointment in Christianity stems from is that what I thought was a vehicle to have a relationship with God turned out to be a set of rules designed more to enhance power of several individuals, power I perceive to have been the basis of abuse of millions of other individuals.

    How can it be right to deny condom use to prevent AIDS because Christians leaders say it's sinful to have sex outside of marriage? Why is sex sinful?! Your God might say it is, but mine doesn't! How can it be right that the only leaders of worship until recently could only be men? Why was Mary Magdalene portrayed as a prostitute for nearly 2000 years? Why were so many paedophiles protected by their Churches? On a less dramatic note, the recent rescuing of the chap who's name has just escaped me - to listen to the twisting and wriggling justifications of his group's leader why they weren't able to thank his rescuers because they were soldiers and soldiering was against their beliefs was nauseating.

    These people are not Christians as I understand them - they are men who have abused their power - in the name of Christianity - and continue to be protected because of that. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The millions of people who have been helped by Christian organisations are lucky to have individuals who are prepared to make sacrifices for them - as are the millions helped by Bhuddists, Muslim, Jews and dare I say it, even pagans.
  13. If I happened to believe in the divine punishment of the lord I might have answered: 'Because you'll catch a healthy does of AIDS.'