Preaching Common Sense
The Archbishop of Canterbury, having returned from a fortnight in China, now favours readers of the Murdoch Times with his insights into the nature of a secular society. China, it seems, "is having to cope with a vacuum where cohesive social morality ought to be, a vacuum shaped by the past 50 years of Chinese history". The Chinese government now "repeats regularly that religion is essential to the 'harmonious society' it aims to create" and "there is a clear recognition that both the motivation and the volunteer base that will make for a sense of responsible citizenship is not going to be there without the religious communities." Well, if the Chinese government recognises it and Rowan Williams agrees, I suppose we must all fall into line.
Dr Williams admits that the situation in the UK is, at the moment, slightly different from that in China; nevertheless, when people talk about "becoming a secular society", the Archbishop fears they may not realise that "they are in effect echoing the idea that the basic and natural form of political organisation is a central authority that 'franchises' associations, and grants or withholds their right to exist publicly and legally within the State". I hadn't realised that myself, I must admit. I always thought a secular society was one in which the state had nothing to do with religion. The idea that, in wishing for such a society, I was inadvertently advocating Beijing-style centralism never crossed my mind, and I would heartily repent my short-sightedness if the Archbishop had bothered to give the slightest indication of the link between the two ideas. Unfortunately, the existence of such a link appears to be a matter of faith.
Dr Williams displays his Church's distinctive brand of unctuous hypocrisy in noting that our system is "secular" in that "it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body" while entirely omitting from mention the legal and civil privileges accorded to the Church of England. A system in which the Government appoints religious leaders, and in which religious leaders have uncontested seats in one of the houses of Parliament, is "secular" only in the specifically Christian sense that it is less Christian than Rowan Williams might prefer.
Dr Williams then proceeds to equate the idea of a secular society with somebody or other's "ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen — no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils". Dr Williams proclaims such an ideal "politically dangerous" because "it assumes that what comes first in society is the central political 'licensing authority', which has all the resource it needs to create a workable public morality". A central political licensing authority which licenses Christian faith schools is, apparently, not a product of such distorted thinking; but again I am at a loss to discover the reasoning behind this distinction. Dr Williams, who has an invisible friend and believes in the resurrection of the dead, concludes that "we could do with some common sense and realism" on the subject.
Meanwhile, never having been much of a one for regulating big business, the Government has backed down from the idea of compelling faith schools to accept quotas of pupils from different faiths or none. The Church of England says it will introduce the policy voluntarily, but has "cautioned against" requiring inferior faiths to do the same. The Secretary of State for Consumer Development, Alan Johnson, said today that he, Ruth Kelly and the Vicar of Downing Street, among others, "share the same goal for a more cohesive society where faith schools play an important part in building understanding and tolerance of other faiths and communities" by practising voluntary apartheid inside school hours.
Dr Williams admits that the situation in the UK is, at the moment, slightly different from that in China; nevertheless, when people talk about "becoming a secular society", the Archbishop fears they may not realise that "they are in effect echoing the idea that the basic and natural form of political organisation is a central authority that 'franchises' associations, and grants or withholds their right to exist publicly and legally within the State". I hadn't realised that myself, I must admit. I always thought a secular society was one in which the state had nothing to do with religion. The idea that, in wishing for such a society, I was inadvertently advocating Beijing-style centralism never crossed my mind, and I would heartily repent my short-sightedness if the Archbishop had bothered to give the slightest indication of the link between the two ideas. Unfortunately, the existence of such a link appears to be a matter of faith.
Dr Williams displays his Church's distinctive brand of unctuous hypocrisy in noting that our system is "secular" in that "it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body" while entirely omitting from mention the legal and civil privileges accorded to the Church of England. A system in which the Government appoints religious leaders, and in which religious leaders have uncontested seats in one of the houses of Parliament, is "secular" only in the specifically Christian sense that it is less Christian than Rowan Williams might prefer.
Dr Williams then proceeds to equate the idea of a secular society with somebody or other's "ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen — no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils". Dr Williams proclaims such an ideal "politically dangerous" because "it assumes that what comes first in society is the central political 'licensing authority', which has all the resource it needs to create a workable public morality". A central political licensing authority which licenses Christian faith schools is, apparently, not a product of such distorted thinking; but again I am at a loss to discover the reasoning behind this distinction. Dr Williams, who has an invisible friend and believes in the resurrection of the dead, concludes that "we could do with some common sense and realism" on the subject.
Meanwhile, never having been much of a one for regulating big business, the Government has backed down from the idea of compelling faith schools to accept quotas of pupils from different faiths or none. The Church of England says it will introduce the policy voluntarily, but has "cautioned against" requiring inferior faiths to do the same. The Secretary of State for Consumer Development, Alan Johnson, said today that he, Ruth Kelly and the Vicar of Downing Street, among others, "share the same goal for a more cohesive society where faith schools play an important part in building understanding and tolerance of other faiths and communities" by practising voluntary apartheid inside school hours.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home