CoffeeHousers' Wall 26th-31st August

Archbishop Cranmer

Will David Miliband be the UK’s first atheist prime minister?

This was the question posed by AC Grayling, one of the foremost philosophers of the postmodern age, with The Guardian reasoning that ‘in this climate of quarrels between religionists and secularists, there are very many reasons to hope for a non-believer at No 10’.

And so Mr Grayling begins:

‘When Labour cabinet members were asked about their religious allegiances last December, following Tony Blair's official conversion to Roman Catholicism, it turned out that more than half of them are not believers. The least equivocal about their atheism were the health secretary, Alan Johnson, and foreign secretary David Miliband.’

Cranmer could give the whole article a good fisking: it is begging for it. But there is something woefully inadequate about it that causes one to question whether Mr Grayling is even half the philosopher he is cracked up to be.

His first mistake is in taking Labour Cabinet members at their word. Would you believe anything they said? Would you have believed Tony Blair's protestations that he is a committed member of the Church of England? Or Gordon Brown on his Christian convictions? And if not, why would you believe David Miliband? He manifestly now has just one agenda, and that is to become prime minister. For that, he needs to be a figure of unity. And since religion divides, it must be eradicated.

And Mr Grayling considers this a good thing, because ‘Atheist leaders are not going to think they are getting messages from Beyond telling them to go to war. They will not cloak themselves in supernaturalistic justifications, as Blair came perilously close to doing when interviewed about the decision to invade Iraq.’

Perilously close to doing? Why perilous? Is it not better to be subjecting one’s discernment to a higher moral worldview than to frame the world according to one’s own morality? Is it not better to be ‘getting messages from Beyond’ rather than getting them from the White House?

’Atheist leaders are going to be more sceptical about inculcating sectarian beliefs into small children ghettoised into publicly funded faith-based schools, risking social divisiveness and possible future conflict. They will be readier to learn Northern Ireland's bleak lesson in this regard.’

This is such puerile reasoning that Mr Grayling appears to have reverted to GCSE philosophy. Like Dawkins, he is blind to the militant sectarianism of Atheism; ignorant of the force for good that true religion has always been (and Cranmer said true religion). Faith-based schools have historically worked in the UK, and they continue to surpass their ‘secular’ counterparts in exam results. Far from being socially divisive, the students who leave them are by and large forces for social cohesion and are frequently more respectful towards their fellow human beings and of authority and tradition.

‘Atheist leaders will, by definition, be neutral between the different religious pressure groups in society, and will have no temptation not to be even-handed because of an allegiance to the outlook of just one of those groups.’

Neutral? Is Mr Grayling not familiar with Rawls for Dummies? There is an evident dilemma in seeking neutrality of political effect because intrinsic to the pursuit of any policy is the likelihood that it will have a detrimental effect on at least one conception of the good (not least the Church of England) to the manifest benefit of another. There are manifestly circumstances in which it is inappropriate to act neutrally, not least where there are not even prima facie reasons to be neutral. Indeed, Mr Grayling ought to consider that there is no neutrality to be had because neutrality needs as much justification as any other position.

‘Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation. This is not a trivial point: for most of history those lower down the social ladder have been promised a perch at the top when dead, and kept quiet thereby. The claim that in an imperfect world one's hopes are better fixed on the afterlife than on hopes of earthly paradises is official church doctrine.’

Actually, posthumous dispensation has been the most persuasive inspiration to good works in the history of mankind. Cranmer cannot see a Wilberforce or a Shaftesbury being ‘driven’ by Atheism. No, they were imbued with a divine and righteous anger which gave them a mission to pursue justice. Mr Grayling may be content to pour scorn on ‘official church doctrine’ but he then preaches the gospel of Marx, seemingly unable himself to learn the lessons of very recent history.

‘Atheist leaders will not be tempted to think they are the messenger of any good news from above, or the agent of any higher purpose on earth. Or at very least, they will not think this literally.’

Really? Mr Grayling ought to try telling that to the millions who died in order that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot could construct their earthly atheistic paradises. Atheists have been responsible for some of the most appalling barbarism in the history of the world, but it is convenient for Mr Grayling to ignore this. Of course, they were not the messengers of some ‘higher’ power, but the agents of their own conviction, and that propensity to unaccountable infallibility is far more dangerous indeed.

But then we come to Mr Grayling’s central thesis:

‘Best of all, if David Miliband becomes prime minister, the prospect of disestablishment of the Church of England will have come closer. This is a matter of importance, for two chief reasons. The first is that the CofE's privileged position gives other religious groups too much incentive to try sharp-elbowing their way into getting similar privileges, such as the ear of ministers, tax exemptions, public funding for their own sect's faith schools, and the big prize of seats in the legislature.

Secondly, the CofE has far too big a footprint in the public domain, out of all proportion to the actual numbers it represents: just 2% of the population go weekly to its churches. Yet it controls the primary school system - 80% of it - and a substantial proportion of the secondary school system, with dozens more academy schools soon due to fall under its control. It is entitled to have 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords, plus a number more who have been made life peers on retiring; and it has the automatic ear of government - do not suppose that if Rowan Williams phones No 10 he is told no one is at home.’

For all its faults, and they are legion, the Church of England embodies something of the psyche of the English people. It may be that 2% of the population attend, yet, according to the last census, 70% of the population acknowledge a cultural affinity with what it represents.

The genius of Anglicanism is that it seeks to reconcile opposed systems, rejecting them as exclusive systems, but showing that the principle for which each stands has its place within the total orbit of Christian truth. Beneath the surface is the feeling for the via media which is not in its essence compromise or an intellectual expedient but a quality of thinking, an approach in which elements usually regarded as mutually exclusive are seen to be in fact complementary. These things are held in living tension, not in order to walk the tightrope of compromise, but because they are seen to be mutually illuminating and to fertilise each other.

This is the ‘living tension’ which was first advocated by Hooker, who was opposed to absolutism in both church and state and an exponent of conciliar thought. This ensures that the laity, clergy and bishops all participate in guarding against autocracy in the state through a system of checks and balances that in many ways apes the parliamentary process. If authority is dispersed, spiritual tyranny is prevented. The similarities between the synodical and parliamentary procedures are unsurprising when both expressions of representative government have a common root in mediaeval political thought.

Notwithstanding this, Mr Grayling is persuaded that ‘Having a statedly atheist British prime minister makes it more likely that the functional secularity of British life and politics, the foregoing exceptions noted, will become actual secularity. Secularism means that matters of public policy and government are not under the influence, still less control, of sectarian religious interests. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not quite capture the sense in which a genuinely secular arrangement keeps religious voices on a par with all other non-governmental voices in the public square, and all the non-governmental players in the public square separate from the government itself. It means that churches and religious movements have to see themselves as civil society organisations like trades unions, political parties, the Scouts, and so on: with every right to exist, and to have their say, but as self-constituted interest groups no more entitled to a bigger share of the public pie of influence, privilege, tax handouts, and legal exemptions than any other self-appointed interest group.’

Sadly, he is blinded to the religious nature of secularism, and the faith position of Atheism. Militant secularism is an inviolable political creed and Atheism itself seeks to propagate an absolutist worldview and infallible doctrine as repugnant as any it seeks to repudiate. Should David Miliband ever become prime minister, one might expect a peerage for Mr Grayling in order that he might focus on the elimination of the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords and the eradication of the Christian foundations of the nation and its constitution. And then he can spout his two-dimensional dogma and preach the gospel of Grayling to his heart’s content, while all the time, covertly and quietly, a far more militant and infinitely more dangerous spiritual power awaits its moment.

And if David Miliband's Atheism is the most laudable attribute that AC Grayling can proffer as commendation for the top job, God help us.

Tim Hedges

Seems a bit of a tall wall, your Grace, or perhaps you write small.

One thing we ought to consider is the possibility of the Church of England disestablishing itself, rather than being disestablished, sickened with being associated with, and therefore partly to blame for, the dross we have running the country

Archbishop Cranmer

Mr Hedges,

His Grace thanks you for your response; he was feeling a little lonely. He also apologises for the length of the post, but firmly believes that Spectator readers are not afflicted by Attention Deficit Disorder.

Disestablishment has many merits, but the demerits are rather more evident. The day that the state attempts to be 'neutral' is the day that all religions are declared 'equal', and the next monarch is crowned by the Pope whilst kissing the Qur'an, holding a sceptre in his left hand and a kirpan in his right, with the congregation chanting "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna".

Disestablishment may separate Church and State, but it will not separarate politics from religion.

Archbishop Cranmer

PS
His Grace apologises for 'separarate'. He is enjoying a mojito.

Anglica

To His Grace:

THANK YOU.
Not just for the above expose of the greatest manifestation of Antichrist in 2000 years - i.e. Marxism and its atheist evangelizers.

Not just for the life you gave in standing up against the Papists-the foreign powers-of your time.

Not just for your major part in the campaign that, for 500 years after your martyrdom, helped and encouraged the British to develop our freedoms in thought, speech, and politics, among other things.

For all of the above - and for the dignity, beauty, and grace of our Church of England liturgy: unsurpassed as it is to this day.

In all humility, THANK YOU - whencesoever your spirit speaks.

Archbishop Cranmer

Ms Anglica,

Bless you. It has all been a very great pleasure (except, of course, the excessive heat on Broad Street).

His Grace had no idea that the Coffee House consisted of so many congenial spirits. He may be persuaded to commune here more often.

Wily Trout

Coo.

Archbishop Cranmer

Is that an animal impersonation?

Alas, His Grace does not speak trout.

Ii is very quiet on this wall.

Verity

Your Grace, I could not compete with Anglica's eloquence or knowledge, but on a more mundane note, I've always wondered what goes into a mojito. Ernest Hemingway was a fan, apparently - a rather unlikely drinking companion for Your Grace!

Archbishop Cranmer

Ms Verity,

His Grace has frequented El Floridita in Havana and heartily recommends it. Its mojitos are most lush, consisting of fresh limes and mint leaves, all mushed with a few teaspoons of caster sugar, followed by a generous pouring of rum over crushed ice. Stir and drink.

Sadly, this is hardly mojito weather, but the effects rather take one's mind off such relative trivia.

Arthur

It is an electoral axiom that a prospective Prime Minister, or even President, must cut a figure on the international stage. Barrack Obama, the Democratic nomination for the 2008 US presidential race, toured the world earlier this year to prove he was worthy of holding the President's office, so too is David Cameron flexing his diplomatic muscles to stake his own claim to the Prime Minster's office.

James Forsyth, writing recently in the Spectator, thinks we are witnessing "the final phase of preparing the country for Prime Minister Cameron". But as the Conservatives use the Georgia situation as an opportunity for "introducing the country to Statesman Cameron", we are presented with a constitutional problem, a significant problem that the MSM has so far failed to notice.

And the problem is this: what business is it of an opposition politician to unilaterally represent Britain's diplomatic position? As he uses the opportunity to "convey Britain's solidarity with Georgia", he, unconstitutionally, lays claim to ministerial rights. He is neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary nor even a minister of any sort. He is an opposition party leader and so has no legitimacy in conducting British foreign policy.

Before this point is dismissed, we and all those who take a patriotic view of the British nation, should recognise that we have a constitutional settlement that British foreign policy is conducted by democratically accountable and appointed ministers of state, Foreign Office officials and duly appointed representatives. It might be churlish to criticise Cameron on showing solidarity with Georgia, but what if he had an opposing view and thought that Russia was more worthy of British support? Sure, it is unlikely that politicians today would ignore the opportunity to find the simplistic bogeyman in all this but if he had gone to Russia, or even South Ossetia under the protection of Russia and stood up and said he wanted to show Britain's solidarity, the Foreign Office might have been a little miffed.

I have seen no evidence that Cameron went to Georgia as part of a synchronised diplomatic effort by the government, so, despite the fact that his position seems to chime with the official position, we should take note that he has taken it upon himself to send a diplomatic message, from an unconstitutional position, that he has no business making. He is not a private individual, he is not even the leader of an NGO that has its own legitimacy in getting involved in what happens in other countries. He is a leading politician in Britain and his words can quite easily be taken to represent the official British position to the conflict. How would he like it if David Miliband, as the leader of the Opposition in a few years time, decided to meddle in diplomatic relations where he took a contrary view to Prime Minister Cameron's own position? Quite.

Arthur

The MOD has just released figures on manning strength for the month of July. It appears that there is now a 3,500 deficit in manning strength for the Army. This equates to about five and a half infantry battalions.

But the true implication is that Army personnel take on more commitments than they otherwise would.

The tone of the release (through the MOD defence news website) has also been written to give the impression that everything is OK but this deficit shows that it is not.

It would be interesting and appropriate for the Spectator to do a feature on manning levels in the Army.

Alf Tupper

Arthur.

Do you mean 'personing levels'?

Sorry, only messing. It's just that with Mr Pollard out of commission and Mr Davies in read-only mode, and with all my bubble wrap popped, what is a chap to do on these midwinter evenings?

One Little Fish

Re: 27/8 12:32 p.m.

Methinks I heard...
Methought I saw...

A Dove?

Kili Manjar-o

Re: 27/8 at 6:10 p.m.
Fascinating that Verity should mention Hemingway - for the end-state of this writer's faith was clearly in question. I would argue, nevertheless, that in "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" the spirit of Harry, the writer, goes where those of the Big Cats go: to the House of God at the summit of Kilimanjaro. He flies in his Tiger Moth up beyond the carcass of the Leopard, which Hemingway has mentioned in the little prologue to the story.

I also suggest, whatever the pros and cons of my argument, that we cannot deny either Harry or His Grace a splash of cooling liquid to alleviate the temperatures they suffered on the earthly plane/plain. I wonder: how final is the irony that the snows are going, if not gone, from Kili? Mo' heat, O!!!

Kili Manjar-o

I assume Compie's "Puss Moth" is a Tiger Moth. Open to correction, of course...

Arthur

Thank you Alf Tupper, I stand corrected.

You are quite right that to use the word 'manning' is sexist beyond belief but we in the Army have always been a sexist, bigoted lot.

I am also looking for a substitute for Human. Any suggestions? Huperson, perhaps? Or just Hu? But then that's a blokes name isn't it?

The English language is just not expressive enough is it.

Archbishop Cranmer

Cranmer is rapturous that Senator McCain has selected Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential candidate, no doubt swayed by the many effectual fervent prayers. She is in her mid 40s and really quite beautiful. But it is not for her aesthetic qualities that Cranmer is delighted by the choice (though they help), but because this remarkable women manages to combine having a large family (five children – one with Down’s syndrome) with a successful career, first as Mayor and then as Governor. Her eldest is in the army, and her youngest is still mewling and puking. She can clearly multi-task, being adept at running Alaska, carrying a baby and bringing up a family simultaneously.

And Governor Palin is an Evangelical Christian. Moreover, she is strongly ‘pro-life’, not like the à la carte Catholic Joe Biden who supports abortion. It will be difficult for any ‘pro-choice’ group to attack her on this, not least because she lives every day with the very real difficulties of bringing up a Down’s child – a child which the vast majority of pro-choicers would have denied the right to life. And not only is she pro-life; she is pro-marriage, hunts, and enjoys dog sledding and drilling for oil.

While she has an undoubted reputation for reform, it cannot be ignored that the principal qualities she will bring to the Republican campaign are enhanced by her being a young woman of conviction. She is the very antithesis of the old man of relativity, Joe Biden.

A female Republican VP candidate is every bit as progressive as a the Democrats’ Afro-American presidential candidate. Both give a nod to the next generation, and both are the embodiment of change.

Cranmer is convinced that this will assure John McCain of victory in November. Not least because her candidacy rather trumps Senator Biden’s bid for the Catholic vote, the majority of which went to President Bush in 2004. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life...

‘You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish...

‘The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation...

‘Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being...’

So how should Roman Catholics vote?

A few weeks ago, a survey across a broad spectrum of opinion revealed that, for the first time in US history, a majority were of the opinion that churches should stay out of politics. The results suggest a potentially significant shift among conservative voters in particular. In 2004, 30 per cent of conservatives said the church should stay out of politics while today 50 per cent of conservatives today express that view. Conservatives are now more in line with liberals when it comes to their views on mixing religion and politics.

And yet while there is a constitutional requirement for the separation of church and state, there is still a very significant contingent – made up largely of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals - who do not believe in the separation of faith and politics. And since, for the majority of these, the issue of abortion outweighs all others, it is most certain that they will now flock to the McCain-Palin ticket.

Frank Pulley

Archbishop Cranmer

Amen to all that 'Bish!

Btw did you ever wax fluent on the utterances of our modern day 'Head of the Church of England' and honorary Druid on the subject of accommodating Sharia Law in Britain? If so I would appreciate the link. If not and you have the time, it would be interesting if you could provide a more intelligible treatise for our troubled minds. Melanie of this parish did a great job for the laity, but another considered and somewhat less abstruse opinion than that of your successor from inside the aancient Mother Church would enlighten us all no doubt and add to ecumenical understanding - or not, as the case may be.

Archbishop Cranmer

Mr Pulley,

His Grace did indeed comment upon Dr Williams' foray into Shari'a, and also that of the Lord Chief Justice.

The links are here (though he is not sure if The Speccie admits HTML):

Dr Williams on Shari'a

His predecessor's response is here

The pro-Shari'a advocacy of the Lord Chief Justice is here.

If these links do not work, please simply google.

Nicholas

Over at Guido's someone has posted this:-

"The office of the Prime Minister has spent £391 million of taxpayer money on public relations campaigns designed to try and improve his standing in the eyes of voters.

The figures were revealed in the annual report of the Central Office of Information, which sends out the Government’s message from each Whitehall department. The increase over the previous year was 16 percent.

In total, spending on advertising and marketing has trebled during Labour’s decade in power from just £11 million in 1997-98.

The Government attracted controversy earlier this year when the Home Office paid £150,000 for a string of advertisements in national newspapers promoting its record on law and order in the run up to the local elections. Critics said it breached rules on ministerial announcements ahead of polling day.

The number of Government press officers has trebled since Labour took office, rising to 3,252 last year. An analysis of the Whitehall communications machine found that the Ministry of Defence has 229 press staff, the Department for Work and Pensions 180, the Department of Health 102 and the Home Office 157.

Brown faced accusations he was abusing taxpayers’ money when it emerged in April that he was appointing new spin doctors and aides at a rate of one a fortnight. Critics claimed the splurge on advisers to boost the Prime Minister’s flagging popularity would cost an extra £350,000 a year."

Frank Pulley

Archbishop

My grateful thanks for those links the content of which inspired me to sample several other posts on your most excellent blog. I see that at this time you are ahead of the Coffee House in reporting the amazingly frank and full confession of the incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer, of not only his own incompetence but that of all his cabinet colleagues. Henceforth you will be my first port of call when logging on. And I would like to confirm Mr Darling's assertion that we (the electorate) are TPO with him, his boss and his cohorts. He has probably been reading this blog (and almost any other blog, it would seem of the Left, Right or Centre).

Anglica

Your Grace -

Independently of Mr. Pulley, I can only say "ditto"; -
and thank you again.

Archbishop Cranmer

Mr Pulley,

His Grace thanks you for your kind comments about his august blog of intelligent and erudite comment upon matters religio-political.

The media spiritual is indeed occasionally ahead of the media temporal.

:o)