I am always amazed by the shallowness of this kind of analysis. And from a chairholder at Oxford, no less. The article begs two questions.
1. You wonder how the rest of the world gets by without an established Church. Somehow, this is not considered by the proponents of establishment. Are other nations less religious, less cohesive, because they do not have an equivalent of the Church of England? It is weird that this kind of thing is never asked.
2. Another question never asked: Is establishment good for the Church of England? I would submit many reasons why it has been destructive of the Church. For example, a Church that is there for everybody and excludes nobody finds it very difficult to define what it actually believes in case it excludes or offends. Also, the public perception of the Church of England as hobnobbing with the powerful and comfortable is very difficult to dispel. This is (mostly) a myth. I am a Catholic priest and I have nothing but respect for my colleagues over the wall, some of them toughing it out in some of the most deprived urban areas that we have. But here is the truth that goes with the turf – despite such heroic service, the Church of England is strongest in the wealthiest areas, weakest in the poorest, where congregations are often derisory. I submit that one reason for this is the perception, historic and present, that the Church of England is for respectable people.
Set the Church of England free, I say, for the good of the nation and for its own good.
In sum, my argument is this. The establishment of the Church of England represents a deeply humanist worldview that is supportive of a liberal ethos
Incredibly weak argument. The Church of England represents a “humanist” worldview that supports a “liberal ethos.” Well…good. So do about a million other organizations, many of them not even religious. That does not amount to an argument for 1) why it should have a special status 2) why this status is good for the Church of England. Admittedly from a long way off and without a lot of knowledge, that status seems to me to be incredibly destructive of the organization.
Terry Tee,
You asked: Are other nations less religious, less cohesive, because they do not have an equivalent of the Church of England?
Less religious? Probably not. Less cohesive? Yes, probably. This is only my opinion, of course, from living in a bitterly divided country that has become so ridiculous in its antipathy toward one another that we’re fighting through chicken sandwiches. We have nothing that unites us. Nothing.
Our government is thoroughly dysfunctional and broken. There is n, o immediate hope that our elected leaders will improve anytime in the future. Talk about taxation without representation? We’ve got it in spades now, baby, unless you’re a wealthy exec and/or power broker.
Sorry, but I think it would be lovely to all be on the same page for something, with something. Anything. When I see thousands of Britons joyfully singing “Jerusalem” or the “Bread of Heaven” hymn (can’t recall the proper name of it at this late hour, sorry!) at national and international events, I’m envious. Yes, I’m sure many will discount that as superficial and meaningless but I don’t think it is. We had this discussion on another thread but Danny Boyle, in his opening ceremony extravaganza, characterized Britain as the Christian nation it is at its heart. This may show up mainly at times of pride or great sorrow but it’s an indelible character. For all of our religious posturing, we in America are rather schizophrenic in that regard.
I wish the Queen was our mum, too. Oh to have a solid, steadfast, apolitical figurehead who unites us as a country and provides a sense of stability. The royal family goes into the poorest of situations and to all sections of the realm bringing attention to people, places, and events, and often transforming them in the wake of their visits. To see the Queen extend a hand of friendship and humble herself in Ireland, despite the personal loss that her family suffered in the IRA bombings, was touching, indeed. It’s amazing what a simple appearance and photo op. can do.
LOL, have I made it any clearer that I was born in the wrong country (probably the wrong century, as well, heh)? Regardless, though, I think it has become very clear to thinking and sentient individuals in the US that we’re missing something. We’re tearing each other apart and, unless it miraculously ends, I don’t see a great future for this country. Another revolution may be necessary, I don’t know We just can’t continue this way and on this path. We need something to rally around and to unify us.
Teatime, that was moving and generous. I thank you. Obviously I could not comment on your perceptions of the current situation in the US, but I can say that at least you have debates and the urgency of choice. The flipside of the unity you perceive here in the UK is blandness. We have no real choice in government – the ‘small government’ option you have in the US is not open to us here. Take for example the discussion over fatherless families – I read a recent report and thought, before I come to the end of the article, someone will be calling on the government to do something – and sure enough by the end of the article there was an ‘expert’ or ‘activist’ (what an oxymoronic word that is) calling on the government to do more to encourage good parenting. (That dull sound you heard across the Atlantic was my head beating against the wall.) And so while from your perspective the US is a bitterly divided nation, from my perspective it has open, honest, impassioned debates and takes responsibility for its future. (Parenthetically: I think however that you need to have more polling places. Seriously. Your turn-outs at elections are low and getting lower, and kids don’t like lining up for long. Here we manage to have a polling place every few hundred yards in the towns.)
Teatime, what makes you think that declaring one particular family to be “royal” and one particular religion to be “official” would unite America? It was precisely to get away from those two things, which were tearing Europe apart, that America was created. We are founded on the premise that “all men are created equal” and that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.” It was to breathe the air of freedom that millions came to this country. I wouldn’t change that for all the world, and neither would 99% of all Americans, so I would say we are still pretty united on at least some things.
It’s true we are in a bad situation at the moment. But hardly the darkest in our history. We have been much, much more divided than this in our past. One hundred and fifty years ago we took up arms against each other and shot each other down by the tens of thousands per day (50,000 at Gettysburg 34,000 at Chickamauga, 30,000 at Chancellorsville). Fifty years ago, the south was integrated at the point of Federal guns, our cities were in flames in race riots, then not much later in massives protests and riots against the Vietnam War. Neither a queen nor an established religion could have papered over these inherent conflicts.
America has to find it’s own way in the world. We were united in WWII and we will be united again when we have a vision of who we are and what we want to be.
You will remember the words of Ben Franklin when he left the Constitutional Convention and somebody shouted out “what have you given us?” and he replied “a republic, if you can keep it.” We have struggled for over 200 years to keep it and we are not going to give up now for the faux unity of a royal family and a “master of ceremonies to the state.”
BTW, I’m wondering which religion you would accept as the “established” one in the U.S.? From a numbers point of view, it would have to be the Catholics, and I am not sure you really want to sit with thousands of Americans joyfully belting out “Salve Regina.” 🙂 I also suspect you would have something to say about your tax dollars going to support the Catholic Church. As you should.
CM,
Obviously, we can’t go back to a monarchy (you remember that it’s hereditary, right?) and a single established church. Those ships have sailed. Terry Tee said that other countries seemed to be doing fine without an established church as a uniter and my point was along the order of “don’t be so sure about that.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that taking the line of “other times have been worse” solves the problem of America turning in on itself time and time again. If anything, it emphasizes the problem we’ve had and continue to have. We don’t like each other much and, at some point, a fuse will be lit once again. Heck, people in my own state make frequent noises about seceding. And in my own family, I’m the one who went to the “dark side” because I live in the South. My family members literally won’t come to visit me here and I’ve been on my own through sickness and health. The civil war is still being fought to some extent in many places and through many families.
Part of the problem is that we’re too dang big. I may be wrong about this but I think that the only other country our size or larger is Canada and the only reason that works is that vast areas are sparsely or unpopulated. And they can’t even keep the small portion that’s highly populated on the same page. Some of them speak French, hearken back to France, and threaten to secede. Shoot, even the Russians lost states to independence so Russia proper has diminished in size.
At some point, someone is going to go too far, to the point of no return, and a secession will take place and perhaps another and another after that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was indeed Texas that started the ball rolling but maybe not in my lifetime. And a state like Texas could very well adopt an evangelical platform, while not going so far as having an “established church, ” per se.
Did Ben Franklin and the lads know that the 13 colonies would grow into this huge country? Probably not. They likely figured Spain and France would have pieces of the pie. If they had known, would they have done things differently? I think so. Too big to fail really doesn’t hold true.
Terry #4,
We have a small government option? I really don’t think that’s true. The Republican Party fancies itself as the guardians of small government but if you look at how government grew under George W. Bush, for instance, then you certainly wouldn’t believe that notion.
The fact of the matter is that we’re too large of a country and have too many government programs to boast of “small government.” Once you start a program such as Medicaid, fat chance you can ever discontinue it. And considering that we have similar programs for different groups, only sleight of hand could call it small government. For instance, y’all have the NHS. We have the VA for veterans, Medicare for the elderly and disabled, Medicaid for the poor, and CHIPS for lower middle class children. Considering the number of people all of these programs cover and the bureaucracy involved in establishing care, coverage, and eligibility for the people applying for these programs, wouldn’t it be simpler and more cost-effective to cover all US citizens in one government program? Yep. But we like to pretend we don’t subscribe to any sort of socialized medicine even though we pretty much do for a sizable chunk of the population.
We’re inundated by government. City, school district, county, state, federal, and umpteen taxing authorities including port authorities, community and state colleges, you name it. I’ve lived in red states and blue states and blue states that turned red. It’s the same story in every one, only the spin changes direction.
I am always amazed by the shallowness of this kind of analysis. And from a chairholder at Oxford, no less. The article begs two questions.
1. You wonder how the rest of the world gets by without an established Church. Somehow, this is not considered by the proponents of establishment. Are other nations less religious, less cohesive, because they do not have an equivalent of the Church of England? It is weird that this kind of thing is never asked.
2. Another question never asked: Is establishment good for the Church of England? I would submit many reasons why it has been destructive of the Church. For example, a Church that is there for everybody and excludes nobody finds it very difficult to define what it actually believes in case it excludes or offends. Also, the public perception of the Church of England as hobnobbing with the powerful and comfortable is very difficult to dispel. This is (mostly) a myth. I am a Catholic priest and I have nothing but respect for my colleagues over the wall, some of them toughing it out in some of the most deprived urban areas that we have. But here is the truth that goes with the turf – despite such heroic service, the Church of England is strongest in the wealthiest areas, weakest in the poorest, where congregations are often derisory. I submit that one reason for this is the perception, historic and present, that the Church of England is for respectable people.
Set the Church of England free, I say, for the good of the nation and for its own good.
In sum, my argument is this. The establishment of the Church of England represents a deeply humanist worldview that is supportive of a liberal ethos
Incredibly weak argument. The Church of England represents a “humanist” worldview that supports a “liberal ethos.” Well…good. So do about a million other organizations, many of them not even religious. That does not amount to an argument for 1) why it should have a special status 2) why this status is good for the Church of England. Admittedly from a long way off and without a lot of knowledge, that status seems to me to be incredibly destructive of the organization.
Terry Tee,
You asked: Are other nations less religious, less cohesive, because they do not have an equivalent of the Church of England?
Less religious? Probably not. Less cohesive? Yes, probably. This is only my opinion, of course, from living in a bitterly divided country that has become so ridiculous in its antipathy toward one another that we’re fighting through chicken sandwiches. We have nothing that unites us. Nothing.
Our government is thoroughly dysfunctional and broken. There is n, o immediate hope that our elected leaders will improve anytime in the future. Talk about taxation without representation? We’ve got it in spades now, baby, unless you’re a wealthy exec and/or power broker.
Sorry, but I think it would be lovely to all be on the same page for something, with something. Anything. When I see thousands of Britons joyfully singing “Jerusalem” or the “Bread of Heaven” hymn (can’t recall the proper name of it at this late hour, sorry!) at national and international events, I’m envious. Yes, I’m sure many will discount that as superficial and meaningless but I don’t think it is. We had this discussion on another thread but Danny Boyle, in his opening ceremony extravaganza, characterized Britain as the Christian nation it is at its heart. This may show up mainly at times of pride or great sorrow but it’s an indelible character. For all of our religious posturing, we in America are rather schizophrenic in that regard.
I wish the Queen was our mum, too. Oh to have a solid, steadfast, apolitical figurehead who unites us as a country and provides a sense of stability. The royal family goes into the poorest of situations and to all sections of the realm bringing attention to people, places, and events, and often transforming them in the wake of their visits. To see the Queen extend a hand of friendship and humble herself in Ireland, despite the personal loss that her family suffered in the IRA bombings, was touching, indeed. It’s amazing what a simple appearance and photo op. can do.
LOL, have I made it any clearer that I was born in the wrong country (probably the wrong century, as well, heh)? Regardless, though, I think it has become very clear to thinking and sentient individuals in the US that we’re missing something. We’re tearing each other apart and, unless it miraculously ends, I don’t see a great future for this country. Another revolution may be necessary, I don’t know We just can’t continue this way and on this path. We need something to rally around and to unify us.
Teatime, that was moving and generous. I thank you. Obviously I could not comment on your perceptions of the current situation in the US, but I can say that at least you have debates and the urgency of choice. The flipside of the unity you perceive here in the UK is blandness. We have no real choice in government – the ‘small government’ option you have in the US is not open to us here. Take for example the discussion over fatherless families – I read a recent report and thought, before I come to the end of the article, someone will be calling on the government to do something – and sure enough by the end of the article there was an ‘expert’ or ‘activist’ (what an oxymoronic word that is) calling on the government to do more to encourage good parenting. (That dull sound you heard across the Atlantic was my head beating against the wall.) And so while from your perspective the US is a bitterly divided nation, from my perspective it has open, honest, impassioned debates and takes responsibility for its future. (Parenthetically: I think however that you need to have more polling places. Seriously. Your turn-outs at elections are low and getting lower, and kids don’t like lining up for long. Here we manage to have a polling place every few hundred yards in the towns.)
Teatime, what makes you think that declaring one particular family to be “royal” and one particular religion to be “official” would unite America? It was precisely to get away from those two things, which were tearing Europe apart, that America was created. We are founded on the premise that “all men are created equal” and that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.” It was to breathe the air of freedom that millions came to this country. I wouldn’t change that for all the world, and neither would 99% of all Americans, so I would say we are still pretty united on at least some things.
It’s true we are in a bad situation at the moment. But hardly the darkest in our history. We have been much, much more divided than this in our past. One hundred and fifty years ago we took up arms against each other and shot each other down by the tens of thousands per day (50,000 at Gettysburg 34,000 at Chickamauga, 30,000 at Chancellorsville). Fifty years ago, the south was integrated at the point of Federal guns, our cities were in flames in race riots, then not much later in massives protests and riots against the Vietnam War. Neither a queen nor an established religion could have papered over these inherent conflicts.
America has to find it’s own way in the world. We were united in WWII and we will be united again when we have a vision of who we are and what we want to be.
You will remember the words of Ben Franklin when he left the Constitutional Convention and somebody shouted out “what have you given us?” and he replied “a republic, if you can keep it.” We have struggled for over 200 years to keep it and we are not going to give up now for the faux unity of a royal family and a “master of ceremonies to the state.”
BTW, I’m wondering which religion you would accept as the “established” one in the U.S.? From a numbers point of view, it would have to be the Catholics, and I am not sure you really want to sit with thousands of Americans joyfully belting out “Salve Regina.” 🙂 I also suspect you would have something to say about your tax dollars going to support the Catholic Church. As you should.
CM,
Obviously, we can’t go back to a monarchy (you remember that it’s hereditary, right?) and a single established church. Those ships have sailed. Terry Tee said that other countries seemed to be doing fine without an established church as a uniter and my point was along the order of “don’t be so sure about that.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that taking the line of “other times have been worse” solves the problem of America turning in on itself time and time again. If anything, it emphasizes the problem we’ve had and continue to have. We don’t like each other much and, at some point, a fuse will be lit once again. Heck, people in my own state make frequent noises about seceding. And in my own family, I’m the one who went to the “dark side” because I live in the South. My family members literally won’t come to visit me here and I’ve been on my own through sickness and health. The civil war is still being fought to some extent in many places and through many families.
Part of the problem is that we’re too dang big. I may be wrong about this but I think that the only other country our size or larger is Canada and the only reason that works is that vast areas are sparsely or unpopulated. And they can’t even keep the small portion that’s highly populated on the same page. Some of them speak French, hearken back to France, and threaten to secede. Shoot, even the Russians lost states to independence so Russia proper has diminished in size.
At some point, someone is going to go too far, to the point of no return, and a secession will take place and perhaps another and another after that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was indeed Texas that started the ball rolling but maybe not in my lifetime. And a state like Texas could very well adopt an evangelical platform, while not going so far as having an “established church, ” per se.
Did Ben Franklin and the lads know that the 13 colonies would grow into this huge country? Probably not. They likely figured Spain and France would have pieces of the pie. If they had known, would they have done things differently? I think so. Too big to fail really doesn’t hold true.
Terry #4,
We have a small government option? I really don’t think that’s true. The Republican Party fancies itself as the guardians of small government but if you look at how government grew under George W. Bush, for instance, then you certainly wouldn’t believe that notion.
The fact of the matter is that we’re too large of a country and have too many government programs to boast of “small government.” Once you start a program such as Medicaid, fat chance you can ever discontinue it. And considering that we have similar programs for different groups, only sleight of hand could call it small government. For instance, y’all have the NHS. We have the VA for veterans, Medicare for the elderly and disabled, Medicaid for the poor, and CHIPS for lower middle class children. Considering the number of people all of these programs cover and the bureaucracy involved in establishing care, coverage, and eligibility for the people applying for these programs, wouldn’t it be simpler and more cost-effective to cover all US citizens in one government program? Yep. But we like to pretend we don’t subscribe to any sort of socialized medicine even though we pretty much do for a sizable chunk of the population.
We’re inundated by government. City, school district, county, state, federal, and umpteen taxing authorities including port authorities, community and state colleges, you name it. I’ve lived in red states and blue states and blue states that turned red. It’s the same story in every one, only the spin changes direction.