MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: A tolerant – and a Christian – nation
It was probably inevitable that the King would eventually disagree with the bishops about his laudable desire to be a broad ‘Defender of Faith’. And the Coronation was always likely to be the issue over which the difficulties would arise.
In general, Christians and non-Christians wish to welcome and honour the other religions that have grown so greatly in this country. We have much to learn from them, and we have much in common with them. That is why their followers have prospered and risen to high office there.
There is no point in strife and antagonism, and every point in tolerance and generosity. So far, so good. But, despite a growing number of non-believers, and the collapse of many church congregations, this remains a Christian country in several important respects. Our law is founded on Christian precepts. A stone figure of Christ stands on top of the Law Courts in London. Our music, education, literature and architecture are rooted in Christian ideas. Perhaps above all these things, the thousand-year-old rite by which the King will be crowned is steeped in the Christian religion. It would be foolish and crabby to refuse any change in this mighty ritual, and the inclusion in the congregation of a much wider cross-section of the population is obviously right and good.
The representatives of non-Christian faiths, likewise, should most certainly be welcomed prominently among the congregation and in the procession.
But their participation in the actual prayers, apparently the subject of a dispute between Church and King, is a much larger issue.
It was probably inevitable that the King would eventually disagree with the bishops about his laudable desire to be a broad ‘Defender of Faith’ (pictured at York Minster on April 6)
Different faiths exist among us because their adherents wish them to be different.
It could be argued that the successful tolerance of this country – rightly encouraged by the King – is a direct consequence of its continuing Christian nature. If we cease to be Christian, for whatever reason, will that tolerance survive?
Labour’s poisonous tactics are proof it’s the Nasty Party
Has Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party chosen to become the Nasty Party? Its use of American-style attack advertisements – especially one accusing Rishi Sunak personally of being soft on paedophiles – is a dangerous and worrying development.
Absurdly portraying itself as the ‘party of law and order’, which it absolutely is not, Labour has taken a very low road. Even its own top deck are shocked, with several leading Labour thinkers attacking the advertisements, including figures on the hard-Left such as John McDonnell.
One of Labour’s wisest and most senior grandees, Lord Blunkett, wrote in yesterday’s Daily Mail that ‘it is deeply offensive to get down in the gutter to fight politics in this way’. He has also pointed out the ignorant absurdity of suggesting that the Prime Minister has personal direct control of the sentences passed on convicted criminals in the courts. Nobody who understands the deep separation of powers between politicians and judges could seriously make such a claim. There is no excuse for this foolishness among educated people, especially when the party leader is a former Director of Public Prosecutions, who knows these things better than most.
Absurdly portraying itself as the ‘party of law and order’, which it absolutely is not, Labour has taken a very low road. Even its own top deck are shocked
There are signs that the campaign may be rooted in Labour anger, and perhaps actual personal fury on the part of Sir Keir, over media attacks on his own career as a lawyer. This could explain why the Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, tried to defend this ugly propaganda on Friday night.
As we see so often in the US, the temptation to go negative is strong, especially when you are in trouble and you are slipping in the polls. But experience shows that it is just as likely to blow up in your face as it is to work.
Sir Keir has done himself and his party grave damage. He has poisoned the wells of debate. He should withdraw the campaign and admit his error.
Source: Read Full Article
