Church of England launches attack on US

It reminds me of philosopher Pangloss in Voltaires "Candide". The guy that say everything is for the best of all possible worlds

I think the influence of this church is stronger then the US would think. I think they could influence a large group powerful people.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised the United States in a Muslim magazine, saying the country wields its power to "accumulate influence and control".

Rowan Williams says the American-led invasion of Iraq amounts to "clearing the decks" with a "quick burst of violent action", and has led to "the worst of all worlds".

The Anglican leader suggests that leadership in the US has broken down and that its actions are misguided. He contrasts it unfavourably with the way the British empire had governed India.

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British empire did - in India for example.

"It is another to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together - Iraq for example."

Archbishop thrown into row over US Middle East policy

· Muslim magazine hardens thrust of wide interview
· Conservative Christians hit back at Williams

Stephen Bates
Monday November 26, 2007
The Guardian

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, found himself plunged into political controversy yesterday after remarks made during the course of a wide-ranging interview for a Muslim magazine were translated into an all-out attack on American policy in the Middle East.
The archbishop told Emel magazine in what it described as "a series of profound views expressed in serene tranquillity" that the US had lost the moral high ground since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, and that Washington's attempts to accumulate influence and control in the region were not working.

He was quoted as saying: "It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British empire did - in India, for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put things back together - Iraq, for example."
The Sunday Times interpreted the remarks as implying that the US was the "worst" imperialist nation and that the crisis was caused by its actions and its misguided sense of its own mission.

The archbishop's criticism of Christian Zionism - the fundamentalist movement, particularly in the US, which supports the Jewish homeland of Israel because it sees it as a fulfilment of biblical prophesy - was transcribed by the newspaper as a more general criticism.

He had told his interviewer that he found Christian Zionism "not at all easy to accept", adding that it was connected with the "chosen national myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God's purpose for humanity".

Not for the first time, the archbishop found his words construed as a new critique of American policy, even though he has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the invasion of Iraq since his inception.

His remarks elsewhere in the interview about the place of religion in society, the development of relationships between Christian and Muslim communities in Britain and the claim that some Muslim political solutions are not always very impressive and might benefit from classical liberal democratic probing, were not reported.

He said: "Not everything about the west is destructive, secular and undermining of virtue."

The archbishop was also critical of Muslim treatment of Christians in Pakistan, saying: "The Pakistan Christian minority is persecuted by the overwhelming Muslim majority, which ought to be more confident and generous about its identity."

Williams called for the US to institute "a generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged, a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories and a demilitarisation of their presence. All these things would help."

He described violence as "a quick discharge of frustration. It serves you. It does not serve the situation. Wherever people turn to violence what they do is temporarily release themselves from some sort of problem, but they help no one else.

"A lot of the pressure around the invasion of Iraq was 'we've got to do something, then we'll feel better.' That's very dangerous".

The remarks were immediately seized upon by US conservatives, scathing of the archbishop for his attempts to hold the worldwide Anglican communion together in its internecine struggle over the place of homosexuals in the church, as they attempt to wrest control of the US Episcopal church from its liberal leadership.

One, named as Katherine, wrote on the TitusOneNine conservative Episcopalian site: "The archbishop's warped view of history is staggering ... now, just when very encouraging progress is being made in Iraq, when massive US tax expenditures are going in and not out ... he feels called upon to label us [as] monsters. I wish he would feel called to do something about the one thing he does have responsibility for, which is the Anglican communion collapsing around his feet."

A spokesman for Lambeth Palace confirmed that the interview reflected the archbishop's opinions, which, he said, had been expressed before.

Yes, the dreaded "double P," powerful and pompous.

this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.

so could anyone explain the difference between the church of england and the church of america?

Quote:

this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.

- king bush, five days after the 9/11 attacks (which, let's be clear about this, happened on september 11th.)

There is no Church of America.

For the Church of England to comment on the U.S., based on British criteria, is sort of silly, since the U.S. is a young country that only a hundred years ago still had a fairly undeveloped West.

We are really so different than the British, and the rest of Europe, it is a waste of time to judge the U.S., based on European sensibilities.

Perhaps, the clergy in the Church of England needs to see old reruns of Gunsmoke/Wagon Train/Bonanza to better understand the U.S.?

Foofie wrote:

For the Church of England to comment on the U.S., based on British criteria, is sort of silly, since the U.S. is a young country that only a hundred years ago still had a fairly undeveloped West.

We are really so different than the British, and the rest of Europe, it is a waste of time to judge the U.S., based on European sensibilities.

Perhaps, the clergy in the Church of England needs to see old reruns of Gunsmoke/Wagon Train/Bonanza to better understand the U.S.?

Yes, that's the ticket foofie, a few episodes of Death Valley Days should do the trick.

American exceptionalism (cf. "exceptionalism") has been historically referred to as the belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions. The difference is typically expressed as some categorical superiority, to which is usually attached some alleged proof, rationalization or explanation that may vary greatly depending on the historical period and the political context...

The basis most commonly cited for American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and its people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom [citation needed]. It is therefore used by United States citizens to indicate a moral superiority of America or Americans. Others use it to refer to the American concept as itself an exceptional ideal which gives the country a privileged position, and which may or may not always be upheld by the actual people and government of the nation. Researchers and academics, however, generally use the term to strictly mean sharp and measurable differences in public opinion and political behavior between Americans and their counterparts in other developed democracies.

Opponents of the concept of American exceptionalism believe it to be little more than ethnocentrism and propaganda.[2] [3] They argue that justifications for an America-centered view of the world are inherently similar to those of many other nations, both ancient and modern, that have claimed an exceptional nature or a destiny different from all other countries. Great Britain at the height of the British Empire, Israel, the USSR and Nazi Germany have claimed manifest exceptionalism, as have many historic empires such as Ancient Rome and China, and a wide range of minor kingdoms and tribes in history. In each case a basis was presented as to why the country was exceptional compared to all other countries, drawing upon circumstance, cultural background and mythos, and self-perceived national aims. There is therefore a sharp divide between the views of those who believe in American exceptionalism, and those who disagree with it.