There’s a new Jesus and Mo strip called “defender”, which came with a note:
It’s King Charles III! He’s not the brightest.
Not much in the media about this.
The link goes to an article from the National Secular Society called “The Monarchy’s rebrand can’t hide Christian privilege.” A short excerpt:
The Telegraph this week made much of what it portrayed as an important evolution in the King’s constitutional role.
In the latest Sovereign Grant report, King Charles is no longer described simply as “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith”. Instead, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Monarch now “protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation”.
Predictably, some Christian nationalist voices reacted as though the monarchy had abandoned Christianity altogether. Others hailed the change as evidence of an institution embracing Britain’s religious diversity.
Neither reading holds up. The change in language is not evidence that Britain’s Christian monarchy has become more inclusive. It is evidence that the Palace knows Christian privilege is becoming less palatable to the British public.
The strip (below) is good, what with the barmaid’s joke.
Oh, and some advertising. Note that I wrote the foreword for the latest book:
Why not become a patron of J&M by applying here? Your support is much appreciated: or buy a book? – The latest J&M collection of J&M strips, which has a foreword by Jerry Coyne, is available here:
Peace and blessings,
Author J&M
x
x
Brilliant, thanks for this mornings smile.
Not entirely sure why Chuck III is getting all the heat for this. The queen said already in 2012: “The concept of our Established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.” (from https://www.churchofengland.org/media/stories-and-features/why-king-known-defender-faith)
… though the original award of the title Defender of the Faith was made by the Pope to Henry VIII for his defence of Catholicism against the ideas of that upstart Martin Luther. (Shortly afterwards Henry decided that it was expedient to change sides.)
As a religion researcher, I have always been both appalled and amused by the log in the eye of religious pluralists. They seem to believe (sincerely and truly believe) they are helping the cause of religion by gutting every religion of its distinctive doctrines, treating every religion’s ritual tradition as sentimentality, and reducing every religion to a bland morality that reflects the moral values of the pluralist and dismisses any other aspects of that religion’s value system as a “hijacking” of that religion’s “true” values. Then, the pluralist seems genuinely surprised when most participants in each religion reject pluralism as an opponent of their truth-claim.
Well, it’s either cherry pick and water down or accept all of a religion’s “distinctive doctrines,” and these include, without exception, some pretty awful stuff. So it’s a bit of a conundrum for those who would like to remain religious or spiritual to at least some extent. I personally think both are loopy, but I much prefer the inconsistent pluralists to the consistent fundamentalists.
Yep, the inconsistent pluralists aren’t as likely to try to force everyone to believe what they believes and to murder “infidels”.
Inevitably, religious convictions will involve some level of cognitive dissonance. This is assuaged by not thinking too deeply.
Terrific!
Charles is best buddies with the Sultan of Brunei who made homosexuality punishable by death. Christian privilege may be becoming less palatable to the general British public but Islamic privilege is definitely becoming so.
Ye gods! Since when is it Christian nationalism to expect the head of the Church of England to promote the Church of England? I expect the Pope to promote Catholicism. I expect the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to promote the Greek Orthodox Church. Are they Christian nationalists if they do? If anything, Charles is laying down on the job here.
Well, I suspect that Charles (and the rest of the royal family) in fact has realized that the Anglican church is simply a lot of nonsense, and not worth defending, so they either had to morph into “defending all faiths” or actually come out as atheists.
It’s a bit different than a pope or a patriarch, who as dedicated believers have spent their entire lives working their way up in the church. The royal family are born into the role, whether they actually believe religious nonsense or not.