|
Resources
The House of Lords - An element of the Constitution
by the Revd. John Lovejoy - who writes from Newcastle upon Tyne
On June the 5th, a feature article appeared in the Sunday Sun (a regional newspaper published in the North East of England and owned by the Daily Mirror), entitled ,"Lords Reform Could Aid North", by William Green and Mike Kelly. These two journalists were commenting on plans to 'democratise' the House of Lords, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. Reference was made to the views of Baroness Joyce Quin - the former Labour MP for Gateshead East and Washington West - and also to political expert and historian Dr Martin Farr of Newcastle University. The former Durham police chief, Lord Brian Mackenzie, was also quoted.
House of Lords reform is on the cards
This is a very important matter, as it concerns an institution which is very ancient and which remains even now very close to the centre of the constitution and political machinery. It is something which, however we might argue about wanting it changed, is very definitely ours, and which we must change - if it needs changing.
The ancient and venerable House of Lords
Briefly, Nick Clegg and Baroness Quin want a more elected and representative House of Lords, while Lord Brian Mackenzie is not so sure, fearing a deadlock between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
The things that worry me, though, are the views of Mike Kelly and Dr Martin Farr.
Leftist journalists always use the word 'racism' to scare people away from debate.
First, Mike Kelly. This journalist is always a good read, and I thoroughly applaud what he says on many matters, as when he wrote about the financial collapse of the Southern Cross care homes recently. But there is another side to Mike Kelly. Not only does he reject the Christian faith, as many do, I know, but he seems to have developed a venomous hatred of anything remotely Christian, and loses no opportunity to pour scorn on Christian concepts at every opportunity.
And this is what I detect here, for Kelly compares the presence of Church of England Bishops in the House of Lords with the presence of Muslim clerics in the government of Iran.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries this was a live issue. Hence we had the cumbersome words, 'Disestablishmentarianism' and 'Antidisestablishmentarianism' - this latter word also serving as an English word of extraordinary length. Because of that, you have probably heard of it.. But why was the word devised?
The fact is, as time went on, a lot of Roman Catholics and Free Church people began to feel that the Church of England were, after all, fellow Christian and could be relied on to supply a Christian voice in the Government of the day, and also that they were reasonably good at it and were doing something which no one else particularly wanted to do.
Since those days, of course, we have seen the progressive marginalisation of Christianity as a whole, and the development of quite aggressive forms of humanist propaganda such as that of the National Secular Society. I recognise that these are genuine English views and that they deserve to be heard. I understand when someone says, "I hear what you and other Christians say about the foundations of your faith, but I am sorry, I cannot share your beliefs, much as I respect them."
In the case of Mike Kelly, though, and some others, I encounter this venomous detestation of anything Christian and a withering scorn. To such persons I will say this:
Our English forefathers decided to become Christian, and even before that they were not atheists but held to an ancient and noble spiritual tradition of an ancestral sort. They were not fools. They also embraced Christianity in a first millenium kind, which was arguably more complete, more balanced, and more deeply held than in the following millenium. And as for supposing that the Christian faith has no real foundation I would say to the likes of Mike Kelly that the arguments in favour of Christianity in its original form - which are experiential and empirical and not based on human philosophies - are quite irrefutable and completely compelling.
I say all this also because it is not wise for our people to dismiss with such scorn something which has been a mainstay of English civilisation and culture since the Seventh Century A.D. But is Mike Kelly English or Irish? Also, I find he is a bit over-ready to accuse people of 'racism' - always a useful way of scaring people into silence.
Islam will thrive on the spiritual vacuum within English society
Secondly, I take issue with Dr Martin Farr of Newcastle University. I quote here from the Sunday Sun feature article:
"Dr Farr believes the system should be tweaked, particularly the selection process. For Dr Farr this means the possibility of making the House of Lords more multi-faith with Muslim Imans and Rabbis sitting alongside Church of England Bishops."
Well! We have here a senior intellectual of the sort who might well be called to serve in any consultation process, and who was probably involved in the draft Reform Bill and White Paper which are said to exist already. We are not told here anything of what Dr Farr personally believes, or how he views his own ethnic background and identity. We do know that the thinking of intellectuals outside of their own specialist subject is often shallow and deficient.
We cannot help being reminded here of the publicised remarks of Prince Charles to the effect that he would like to be regarded as 'Defender of the Faiths' (plural), and also the extraordinary remarks of the Church of England cleric, Dr Rowan Williams, which appeared to suggest that he regarded that aspects of Sharia Law would inevitably have to be incorporated into our English legal system. I innocently thought 'Dr Rowan Atkinson' when I first heard about this!
The multi-culturalist future monarch who wants to be "defender of faiths"
Anyway, there are several things to say:
First, Dr Farr's proposal is wholly unacceptable, as it runs contrary to a vital element in our English communal identity since the seventh century.
Christianity and Islam are directly incompatible, since Islam, which arose later than Christianity, directly contradicts the earlier faith on all the central points. Thus, to follow Dr Farr's recommendation would introduce contradiction into the most sacred elements at the centre of our constitution. What would happen to the Coronation Rite after that, for instance?
All of this might not matter too much to militant atheists such as Mike Kelly, who possibly reason that all religions are nonsense anyway, and simply squabble about different sorts of Great Goblins that they affect to worship! I realise that this is rather scurrilous language, but only so can I convey something of the venom which Mike Kelly and some other journalists use in this matter.
By contrast, all traditional forms of Christianity would insist that if you allow the fount and source of human spirituality to be tampered with or mixed, then the eventual consequence of such a thing will be dire.
Furthermore, islam has shown itself to be a very powerful, persistent, determined and enduring force in the world. Islam cannot, in the long term, be opposed by a sterile and indifferent agnosticism, and probably not by atheism.
No, Islam can only be faced down, and eventually overcome, by a much superior and truer faith. It is true theology which will ultimately stop Islam - not by destroying it or by attempting to ridicule it, but by convincing ordinary people that there is something much truer and better. It is also relevant to say here, when so many of our young people have died in Afghanistan, that Islam cannot be overcome by force or military might, for armed strength is not designed for that purpose. This is not to say that armed opposition is wrong when Islam itself presents itself in that guise, and in the past there have been decisive battles in which Europe has had to say, 'Thus far, and no further!'. But the main battle is a spiritual one, and is the battle for human hearts and minds.
House of Lords reform is too important to leave to the politicians, academics and journalists
What is important, then, is that we, the English People and other indigenous nations of the British Isles, should remember who we are, where we came from, and while not yet managing to agree entirely on what we believe, should insist on resolving our differences in our own way without alien influence being imposed on us through instruments of central Government. In the meantime, we will continue to respect those spiritual sources which have been with us since very early times. As for the Constitution, I personally believe that any voting procedure on such a central matter should be directed exclusively to those of the electorate who are ethnically English (and also other indigenous British where they are directly concerned.)
Our voice should be heard!
|
