By Ben Harris-Quinney, The Commentator
We are quite possibly less than a decade away from seeing the Monarchy, the Church, and marriage as a historic institution become intellectually and rationally indefensible in Britain
[...] The second half of the 20th century witnessed, on a global scale, among the most significant social changes in human history. Over the last 60 years God, the Queen, and Country, once the pillars of British society, have been strongly challenged by atheists, republicans, and progressives alike, heralding a form of post-modernist thought that its adherents compare to the renaissance.
The result has, however, been not a strengthening of British society, but a weakening, and the answer to why for those on either side of the debate can be found in the impure ideology of consensus politics.
Three issues that underpin the old pillars of British society are currently among the most present in the public mind: hereditary rule, the ability of women to hold positions of leadership in the Church, and gay marriage.
On each of these three issues the institutions to which they are relevant are clear, and have been clear for millennia. Hereditary rule is bestowed upon a subject to rule by God, and it is on this basis alone that they are heralded as the chosen monarch; the Bible sets forth that women cannot teach or serve in leadership positions within the Church; and marriage by Church or by state has forever been between the sexes.
In Britain however it appears that the above can be ignored or adapted to fulfil an immediately modern ideal of societal correctitude, rather than adhered to entirely, or discarded altogether. Surely for a nation so resonant with intellect and debate this is a depressing circumstance indeed.
There are three clear approaches that one can take to any of the above issues. One can accept that the institution and its founding doctrines are incorruptible and correct. Alternatively, one can conclude they are an undoubted human construct with no relevance in the modern world. Or, finally, one can accept them as a false construct and outdated institution, but one that should be kept for the sake of continuity and compromise.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.