Post 143—Prince Charles on Religious Freedom

It’s for almost 55 years that I have felt some sort of affinity with Britain’s Prince Charles. My wife and I are about to celebrate our 55^th wedding anniversary.

Now in most cases, the above two sentences might be found in different chapters of a book or in different articles. What could they possibly have to do with each other and be found in successive sentences like here?  Perhaps a bit far sought, but it so happens that my late father-in-law’s name was Charles Prins. It was not his birth name; that was a classic Frisian name “Tjalling,” but its closest English equivalent was considered “Charles.”  So, that’s the name he adopted upon immigration to the USA in 1948. I’m not sure anyone at the time thought about the similarity to that of the Prince. Perhaps it’s a mere sentimentality, but since I always was fond of my father-in-law, that somehow transferred to the Prince as well. 

So, I was very happy that my sentimental hero—“sentimental” referring to me, not the Prince!—gave such an interesting

speech on the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” programme. Part of it was politically correct to liberal ears, and part to conservative ears. Now, we don’t usually hear political incorrectness from the mouth of princes, but this time it was couched in a nearly politically correct framework. Leave it to British royalty to manage such a contradiction!                                      

The politically correct for the liberals was the need to protect and give freedom to all religions, but then religion as defined by them, not by the religions themselves, particularly the scope of religions. The Prince defended his position by referring to a speech by the queen back in 2012, in which she stated that the Church of England has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths. Charles himself at one time described his responsibility as “defender of faith” rather than “defender of the faith,” something that shocked traditionalists, who “were furious,” according to the writer of the article, Tim Stanley. To them this was totally politically incorrect, but it should be remembered that “a key part of British identity is religious freedom,” which is often the stated reason for Muslims to come to Britain.

I am an orthodox Christian of the type often described as “Reformational.” (If you want to know more about that, I encourage you to check out my website <  www.SocialTheology.com  >)  As a Reformational, I totally agree with a government that is neutral when it comes to religions; neutral, not secular, which is a different thing altogether. I am talking about a government that treats all religions equally, which is what Prince Charles is talking about. Correct as far as liberals are concerned; incorrect as far as most conservatives are concerned. 

But then he turns around and begins to explicate about religious persecution by Muslims of Christians and other religions, including even fellow Muslims. Now he’s politically correct for the conservatives, who are offended that such persecution gets so little public attention, but incorrect for the liberals, many of whom do not care about this or refuse to make it a special issue, as in the case of the Canadian Government.

Alas, British royals don’t seem to have much clout in the political sphere. If you keep up with British developments, you should be aware of the strong anti-Christian bias in the country’s political sector, a situation that hardly reflects the ideals of the Prince. One would almost get the impression that he is a “mere” member of the public whose only power is his voice, on BBC in his case.

The article in which I find this info is written by Tim Stanley, a fine article but one in which it is not clear where the Prince’s speech ends and Stanley’s report begins. Stanley describes his message as “grim.”  “Tolerance is evaporating; the wars of religion are back.”  “For millions ‘religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.’ As well as oppression of Christianity in Iraq, he referred to attacks on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and other minority faiths in the Middle East, and the persecution in other countries that aims to wipe out religious diversity.”

Stanley adds a few more interesting comments that I am not sure whether they are his or the Prince’s. “It is religious literacy, not secularism, that will bring an increasingly diverse nation together.”  I would say there’s more than just something to be said for that!  The other, “How wonderful, what a testament to Christian civilization, that faithful Muslims now seek refuge in Britain.”  Indeed, so it is, but one seldom hears this declared as a Christian virtue. Liberals consider this as their achievement. Allegedly, they have overcome the intolerance of Christians and thus created an open door for Muslims to enter. Personally, I wager that liberalism would not even exist if it were not for the Christian soil in which it sprouted.

I encourage you to read Stanley’s article at: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=grim%2C+yes%2C+but+Charles+got+it+right.  (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 26, 2016, p. NP5)