monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@izzythepush,

OK. I've done some reading and learn something I had not known, that England, Scotland and Wales each have an "official religion".

Yet, as you say, this has not resulted in a theocratic domination of the political processes there. And that's really very interesting when contrasted with the zest for theocratic or semi-theocratic domination in the US.

I'm going to have to think about this some more.

Edit: I'll add that when I was doing religious studies at university, I came away with a lot of respect for the sophistication of Anglican religious thought. Though it does not have the long history of Catholic theological inquiry, it is far more sophisticated and honest than North American protestantism. There really are no significant American Protestant philosophers. I was quite flabbergasted to read John Hick concluding, after a rigorous examination of the question, that blind luck is an undeniable feature of the universe. That's a conclusion we're not going to hear from the Campus Crusade for Christ people.

1 Reply

@blatham,

CofE Bishops sit in the House of Lords. That's the extent of their political power and puts us on a par with democracies like Iran.

The ABofC officiates at coronations etc.

Our school assemblies often have a religious element, it's not always Christian though, and Religious Education involves many different faiths.

One main difference is that the local vicar has pastoral responsibility for all in his parish. A lot don't want it, but if you really want a visit by a vicar and you're an Atheist or Muslim or whatever you can get one.

Church marriages depend on the vicar. Some insist that you have to attend church for x amount of weeks.

Not where I got married. The local vicar marries anyone regardless of attendance.

http://www.hampshirechurchwindows.co.uk/churches/bar5.JPG

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Thank you!

0 Replies

@blatham,

Our way of doing things is very British though.

After the glorious revolution that installed William of Orange king there was a law passed to ensure that the monarch could not be married to a Catholic.

That has only just be repealed btw.

What that left was an extremely broad church, from pseudo Catholic all the way to reformist protestant.

Our priests tend to speak in very broad terms and take a more objective approach towards morality.

Our state religion is in itself a compromise, a very broad church with lots of conflicting opinions.

Massive fudge and compromise, about as British as you can get.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Massive fudge and compromise, about as British as you can get.

I like that.

0 Replies

I had forgotten this

Quote:

Earlier in the presidential-campaign cycle, support for impeachment proceedings against Trump was a controversial proposition — so much so that in April when Elizabeth Warren became the first in the huge field to call the Mueller report sufficient grounds for an impeachment inquiry, it was something of a sensation (yes, Tom Steyer spent an impressive share of his large fortune promoting impeachment long before that, but he did not become a candidate until July).

Why Impeachment Is a Difficult Debate Topic for Democrats
By Ed Kilgore

0 Replies

And the Archbishop of Canterbury is treated with all the reverence the British reserve for such important figures.

Ask the AbofC is a regular feature in Viz comic, only now it's Justin Welby.

http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2014-10-29-at-10.46.36.png

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Great stuff, Mr. Push!

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

That's absolutely key, I think. The authoritarian state of mind, whether in politics or religion or any other human communal activity, will always stretch towards forbidding satirization of leaders or traditional ideas. To do so is to profane that which must not be profaned. The full-throated rejection of this is one of the fundamental reasons we love Monty Python.

I'm not sure how many times I've watched the debate between Cleese, Palin, Muggeridge and Burridge after the release of Life of Brian but I'll probably watch it again for fun and inspiration.

1 Reply

Hints lately that Mike Bloomberg is reconsidering a run for the WH if Biden fails.

If he does, then to really pump up his chances, I'd recommend the team of Bloomberg/Bristol Palin.

0 Replies

@blatham,

It seems like it's from another age. I remember Michael Palin got very upset, but John Cleese just treated it as a joke.

Muggeridge was a bit of a hypocritical turd, attaching himself to any campaign that would raise his profile.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Cleese did handle it better though Palin's sincerity and frustration with idiocy was quite evident.

Muggeridge had been, earlier in life, something of a gadfly but post-conversion the worst of his upper-class snootiness only blossomed. He really was a twit at this point.

1 Reply

Filling The Swamp notes from all over

Quote:

Steve Benen
@stevebenen
"We stared down the unholy alliance of lobbyists and donors and special interests, who made a living bleeding our country dry." - Donald Trump, four months ago

Yeah, about that...

Quote:
ProPublica
@propublica
New: That’s one lobbyist for every 14 political appointees, and four times more than Obama appointed in half the time.https://propub.li/33B3EWu

0 Replies

@blatham,

He edited Punch which wasn't beyond a bit of blasphemy itself.

1 Reply

On an unrelated topic, I read an interesting piece in the NYT about the fellow who recently won a noble peace prize (for what exactly?)

It's too long to copy and paste. However, the title and the sentence below gives you a good hint. If you can read it, it is really worthwhile.

Quote:

‘The Bob Dylan of Genocide Apologists’

Peter Handke, the Austrian writer, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, is an apologist for Slobodan Milosevic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/opinion/peter-handke-nobel-bosnia-genocide.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

0 Replies

@blatham,

https://able2know.org/topic/355218-3750#post-6912785

I read that article this morning. I thought it was kind of frivolous because Barr's speech was alarming in and of itself. We have a US attorney general who wishes our county was run on a theocracy. Exactly whose belief of a theocracy I am not sure.

I think the author of the article was making the point that Barr's moral theocracy doesn't square with Trump of whom he supports.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Right. It was around that time when I first bumped into the fellow.

1 Reply

@revelette3,

Quote:

I think the author of the article was making the point that Barr's moral theocracy doesn't square with Trump of whom he supports.

Along with Barr's religiosity, that is definitely the key point. And of course, Barr is not alone in this glaring case of hypocrisy and double-think.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

Along with Barr's religiosity, that is definitely the key point. And of course, Barr is not alone in this glaring case of hypocrisy and double-think.

Yes, it is just that by talking about the political point, it takes away from the serious point of Barr's private (or not so private among some folks I guess) wishes. It is also alarming that apparently there is an effort of this kind of speech to specifically spread a message which is more alarming.

Quote:

There are two ways to read these remarks, which were one of three speeches by administration officials in recent days on Christianity’s role in U.S. governance.

(from your link)

1 Reply

@revelette3,

Right. Her tact on this is more than questionable. God knows why the hell she chose do that.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know