Churchill come home!
Thursday July 6, 2006
The Daily Mail reports that the Church of England is considering abandoning St. George as the patron of England because "his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims."Lord have mercy. These people. Ashamed of St. George! (Who may not...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Top Features
- Seven Patron Saints for Healing and Comfort
- A Prayer for Children Going to School
- Accidental Blessings
- Inspiring Barack Obama Inauguration Quotes
- Don t Take Away My Coffee
- Other People s Beds
- We Have It All
- Multifaith Mealtime Prayers
- Man in the Mirror
- John McCain: Constitution Established a 'Christian Nation'
Inevitably one is reminded of Malcolm Muggeridge's remark about contemporary life being the despair of the satirist; the sort of thing that once would have been the invention of over-the-top satirical writing is now suggested quite seriously.>
"I swear, you could arm the choirs of the ten Bible churches closest to where I sit deep in the heart of Texas with pool noodles and bullhorns, and they could run half the marmalade-spined clerics of the Church of England over the White Cliffs of Dover like a herd of shrieking Gadarene schoolgirls."
Hahaha! That's pretty good, Rod.>
Uh-oh. Better get me a new name, as there's another one of me on here. Afer this I'll be Thuloid, so's the guy above can be Adam.
Anyhow, I can't feel too sorry for St. George. He may not stay the patron saint of England, but he remains with St. Christopher a patron saint of people who don't exist, which there are quite a lot of (or aren't quite a lot of, I suppose).>
The Church of England has ceased to be both. I wonder what the new flag of Englanistan will look like. Soon you will hear the sound of "Allah Akhbar" instead of "Lord, have mercy" in the now empty churches. Sad.>
Hee, hee. . . Gadarene schoolgirls! But Churchill was twisted. (Remember his plan to spread anthrax throughout central Europe in the event D-Day didn't work out?) How about Henry V come home?>
Art imitates life, or vice versa? Now we have proof that the fictional mentality that could think up a Buddy Christ in the movie "Dogma" is not so far from reality as the critics of the movie might have thought.
I used to be a flaming critic of things Christian. Now in my gentle dotage all I can think to do is hand out walking canes for the ones who insist on shooting themselves in the feet.>
Of course St. George existed! Someone had to have killed that dragon. Whether or not his name was George is of course debatable.
This is all a reaction against other famous people named "George". For example, George Burns played God in that movie. And George Lucas, that Star Wars guy. And don't forget George Clooney, George Soros, Boy george.... Plus there are a few others.>
"There was once here a glorious Church, but it was betrayed into the hands of Libertines for the real or affected love of a little temporary peace and good order."
John Keble
"National Apostasy"
22 July 1833>
"Poor Church of England. Whoever thought it would end like this?"
I did. That's why I converted.>
"Cry 'God, for Harry, England and Saint Alban!'"
Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, somehow.>
Poor England... are there none left to cry "A Talbot! A Talbot" ?>
I guess that will leave only the Boy Scouts with St. George as their patron. Of course, presumably one of the reasons Baden-Powell chose St. George as the patron of the Boy Scouts was because he was the patron saint of England. So maybe the Boy Scouts will have to look elsewhere, too.
I always thought that the patron saint of the Boy Scouts should be St. Paul, because he was a tentmaker. ;-)
I tell my myth students that the image of St. George slaying the dragon is one of the images in Christian art that clearly goes back to pre-Christian antiquity. It's essentially the same image as that of Bellerophon slaying the Chimera, from Greek myth.
BTW, one can still buy St. Christopher medals. I have one in my car. Just because a saint is taken off the "official" calendar doesn't mean that it is forbidden to venerate him or her on the local level.>
Of course, one can always take the point of view of Chesterton, Tolkien, or Lewis (a gathering of people not exactly un-schooled about mythology) that the pre-Christian myths were prefigurations fulfilled by Christianity. From that point of view, calling it "essentially the same" isn't exactly right.
Richard>
If the Brits permit this, then I'd say St George deserves a better nation to be patron saint of. Any Brits here? Please get very angry, and make it snappy.>
Isn't he a patron of Russia, too, if I'm not mistaken?>
He certainly is the patron saint of Georgia (thus, the name). The country, not the state.>
Some other possibilities, just in case...
According to my references, Saint George is the patron of the following countries/regions/cities:
Aragon
Beiruit
Canada
Cappadocia
Catalonia
Constantinople
Ethiopia
Ferrara
Genoa
Georgia (as Lucas said, the country, not the state)
Greece
Limburg
Lithuania
Malta
Moscow
Palestine
Portugal
and a few other cities & towns scattered around Europe.>
I had always understood St. Nicholas to be the patron of Russia.
According to this site on Catholic saints St. George is the patron (or a patron) of a host of nations besides England, including Germany, Greece, Georgia, Canada, Ethiopia, Palestine, Portugal and Malta.
Curiously, he was originally named Patron of England by Pope Benedict XIV.>
BTW, there is no reason to assume that St. George did not exist just because fanciful legends were attached to his name.>
I don't think there is one patron saint of Russia, at least I never heard of one. Saint Vladimir and Saint Olga come to mind, as does St. Nicholas. St. Alexander Nevsky is also popular as is St. Seraphim of Sarov.>
The saint became an English hero during the crusades against the Muslim armies that captured Jerusalem in the 11th century.
I wonder if Crunchy and his buddies would welcome Hitler as the Patron Saint of Ze Germans?
If a minority of Muslims are nothing to worry about in England, surely a minority of Jews would be nothing to worry about in Germany.
Right?
(let's see how long it takes for a rightie to scream "anti-semite")>
You know, everyone's culture has something that is offensive to someone else. I'm sick of this idea that history doesn't matter, that someone, just because someone is "offended", we should just press the cultural reset button and start over.
Maybe fat people will decide that they are offended by the American flag because, as we all know, horizontal stripes make people look fat.>
Some things, regardless of the "heritage" attached to it, just shouldn't be held up as a standard for everyone.
If a country has citizens of diverse origins and heritages, should a symbol supposedly representative of *all* of the citizens be something anathema to *some* of them?
How about the rebel flag? Would it be acceptable to make it the state flag of Georgia, for instance, which has a huge African-American population?
Sometimes doing the right thing is doing the right thing.
Maybe we should turn the argument around and instead of asking why Muslims should balk at St. George we should examine why a nation would want a symbol of genocide as its patron saint?>
gitv,
Are you aware that Georgia did incorporate the Confederate flag in its state flag from the 1950s to around 2000?
(BTW, I'm glad they changed it).>
The Crusades have nothing to do with genocide.
Considering that the "patron saint" of a modern European nation has zero to do with the government (and, yes, I know that the PM chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury), the notion that he or she should appeal to all citizens, rather than the members of the particular church in question, is asinine.>
gittv,
The more apt comparison would be suggesting De Gaulle rather than Hitler. The Germans invaded France, and the French got a lot of help to try to kick the Germans out, not always in perfectly moral ways.
The Christians, you see, were in Palestine first. The Middle East did not become Muslim through logical argument and convincing rhetoric.>
My point is, it doesn't matter who was there first, or who there's more of, or even whose God is bigger.
Why is choosing not to nationally celebrate something part of the nation thinks is evil a bad thing?
I guess that question could be asked about anything, though.>
Sometimes part of the nation is just stupid, wrong or childish. In these cases, everyone else needn't bow to their complaints.
So some British Muslims don't like St. George? Too bad. I can't imagine a Christian saint that wouldn't offend them. But then, that's the point--the C of E may as well go ahead and adopt Mohammed.>
Geez - take a nap, man. You sound cranky :)>
If Brits were to migrate to Muslim countries and establish citizenship, by what right would they have to expect the majority Muslim population to give up its reverence for Saladin and other Muslim heroes who did very nasty things to Christians? It makes no sense.>
If Brits were to migrate to Muslim countries and establish citizenship, by what right would they have to expect the majority Muslim population to give up its reverence for Saladin and other Muslim heroes who did very nasty things to Christians? It makes no sense.
Of course it does, Rod, in that we're supposed to be the society that cares more about *all* of its citizens.
Are you really using the "Well, Johnny says "F*ck" so why can't I?" argument?>
Of course it does, Rod, in that we're supposed to be the society that cares more about *all* of its citizens.
LOL! Whether we "care" about them or not, we have no obligation to accommodate the sensitivities of people who reject our society's heritage and values.
Otherwise, all public symbols and institutions would have to be geared toward the lowest common denominator. In other words, we would cease to be a society in any meaningful sense at all.>
Are you aware that Georgia did incorporate the Confederate flag in its state flag from the 1950s to around 2000?
Mississippi still does.>
If a country has citizens of diverse origins and heritages, should a symbol supposedly representative of *all* of the citizens be something anathema to *some* of them?
If the country is just starting out and you're coming up with a symbol from scratch, then, sure, you should try to find something that will be generally acceptable.
But we're not starting from scratch. When people move into an established society, they have to expect to adapt to the customs and traditions of that society, not expect that the society will adapt its customs and traditions to suit their sensibilities.>
we have no obligation to accommodate the sensitivities of people who reject our society's heritage and values.
So your point is "screw you guys, we don't have to change, neener neener?"
Real grown up.>
gitv,
The point is, both the immigrant and the country need to be grown up. Only then is compromise possible.
If the immigrant rejects the host country's "heritage and values," there is little incentive for the country to change. (BTW, love the analogy of "If you give a mouse a cookie...")>
Grow up yourself. No, my point is not that society's standards don't ever have to change as society itself changes and as new people come in. My point is that people who move into a society have a responsibility to accommodate themselves to their new surroundings, not the other way around. Yes, there is such a thing as meeting people partway, and every group of immigrants has contributed to and changed society. However, this presupposes good will on the part of the new arrivals, that they want to try to adjust to their new society; not an attitude of "you need to change your longstanding customs to suit my tastes."
And I stand by my statement that society has NO obligation to accommodate the sensitivities of people who blatantly reject that society's heritage and values. Such people are not showing any willingness to try to assimilate and be good citizens of their new society; they just want their new society to change everything to suit them.
I think all this was pretty clear in my posts, though I apologize if it wasn't. But it's clear from your post, TV, that you just want to be insulting.
BTw, I don't know why my last two posts came through as from "Anonymous".
David J. White>
My point is that people who move into a society have a responsibility to accommodate themselves to their new surroundings, not the other way around.
Just like the expansionists who raped and pillaged their way across the nation, slaughtering millions in their way?
You people - and I mean that with *all* the venom I can muster - are completely unable (or merely unwilling) to see how your "do as I say, not as I do" attitude toward the world makes us the joke that we are today.
I will continue to pray for revolution.>
And thus it is demonstrated why "dialogue" is generally a silly goal. I think it was Frederica Mathewes-Green who said something to the effect of, in writing about a "dialogue" group between pro-choice and pro-life folks, "What is there to dialogue about? We believe it's murder, and you don't. What do we have sufficiently in common to make any 'dialogue' productive, when our premises are so diametrically opposed?"
Richard>
I've posted about this at my blog and emailed the Rev Philip Chester (who seems to be the initiator) for comment. The synod part seems to be a beat up according to one commenter at GetReligion who attended. Anyone know how to confirm that officially?>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.