I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that when Prince Charles becomes King, he should not become 'defender of all faiths', rather than just Christianity. Prince Charles had indicated in an interview in 1994 that he would like to become "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith".For now, I'll not get into the debate about whether a modern democracy should have a monarchy, but why on earth in the twenty-first century should its Head of State have the title "Defender of [insert your religious delusion(s) here]"? Why not just "Defender of Reason" (I realise that Prince Charles may not be best qualified for this), or "Defender of the People"? I appreciate that Prince Charles was trying to be all-inclusive in a multi-cultural society, but surely the best way to ensure that no group is offended or felt excluded is not to mention religion at all?
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).