March 22, 2005
PERFIDIOUS? PERHAPS, BUT NOT SINISTER:
Blair praises faith's place in society, but not politics (Matthew Tempest, March 22, 2005, Guardian Unlimited)
Tony Blair today called on Britain's churches to play a "bigger role" in national life, but rejected the US style of politics in which people "beat their chests" about their faith.In a speech to Faithworks, an organisation of largely evangelical Christians in London, the prime minister said churches made a "visible, tangible difference" for the better in society.
And, despite a recent cross-party understanding that religious beliefs on issues such as abortion should not become part of party politics, Mr Blair said he would like to see church leaders "play a bigger, not a lesser role in the future."
Quite fun to watch this election play out as the Tories finally realized that whichever party is furthest Right will win, something Mr. Blair knew all along but seemed to forget for awhile. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 22, 2005 4:13 PM
As someone with a Queen as sovereign who is also the head of the state church, I find Bair's "beat their chests" remark a bit over ripe.
Posted by: Luciferous at March 22, 2005 4:22 PMWhile the English go for pageantry, they really don't like the raw emotion of American religion, which has its roots in the Celtic diaspora.
Posted by: bart at March 22, 2005 5:19 PMi had no idea the pilgrims were celtic, or that the celtic disapora started in the late 1500's.
Posted by: cjm at March 22, 2005 5:40 PMThe Celtic diaspora is the population of the American South which is the homebase of strong religious fervor in America.
The Pilgrims were serious oddballs, quite outcast in 17th century England, and utterly incapable of making a go among disparate religious groups in Holland.
Posted by: bart at March 22, 2005 5:52 PMWow, Bart, that brings to mind the wisdom I heard many years ago at a Jewish wedding from an under-appreciated, sulking grandmother: "The older you get, the more you learn."
Posted by: at March 22, 2005 7:31 PMWhere in the south did Jonathan Edwards receive the spark that he sparked the Great Awakening with?
Until the 18-teens all Christian clergy educated in America received their education north of the Mason-Dixon line. Regardless though, everything on this side of the big pond is considered wild, wolly and less than proper by our former colonial masters.
Posted by: Dave W. at March 23, 2005 2:32 AMDave,
To the extent they received formal educations. But then what about places like William and Mary, College of Charleston and the like? BTW, Edwards, i.e. son of Edward, is a good Welsh name.
Posted by: bart at March 23, 2005 6:48 AMAh yes, W&M and Charleston College, those great progenators of religious piety and and spiritual zeal! Sorry, I don't think so.
Informal religious/ministerial training prior to about 1800 came via seminary trained clergy, who received their education in the northeast US. By the 18-teens seminaries were being started in Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky as folks began moving west.
And BTW, the Welsh are not (though I could be wrong)a Celtic people.
Posted by: Dave W. at March 23, 2005 10:28 PM"Connecticut...homebase of raw religious expression!" (TM)