not so

Submitted by rw (Australia), Feb 15, 2015 at 18:05

Dear Daniel,

Not so, not really. This is more of Charles' usual ill considered rubbish.

When he describes himself as the Defender of Faith, he is in fact overturning a 1000 years of history in which the monarch has been seen as the the Defender of the Faith, that is, the Christian faith. Quite why he should feel competent to do this is open to question; personally I think that "a little learning is a dangerous thing" covers it in his case.

It is interesting how important being rooted in history can be. Your country, I think, has a concept of "freedom of religion"; the modern difficulty is that where no doubt your founding fathers could not have envisaged this meaning anything other than freedom of Christian religion, their intent has been perverted, in th same way as Charles does, to mean anything that, however loosely, can be defined as "religion" - in Charles' case, "faith".

Of course, this a problem of multi-cultural societies; the clock cannot now be turned back. But this comment might help a little in thinking about things.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".