Prince Charles 'cannot defend all faiths'

[bigfootedfred]

The Prince of Wales cannot defend all faiths because the differences between them makes such a position untenable,
a senior Anglican bishop has said. The Bishop of Rochester,
Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said all faiths could not be defended because of serious differences between various religions.

He said Prince Charles would be obliged to take an oath to defend the Christian church if he succeeded to the throne.
Dr Nazir-Ali has also warned against "multi-faith mish-mash" in the UK.

source

The Next king of Great Britain and the commonwealth.
Will he divide from the Church, or bond with it stronger?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I've met the Bishop, Rochester is near where I live. Man's an ancient nutjob, set him on fire.

[Carach]

I've met the Bishop, Rochester is near where I live. Man's an ancient nutjob, set him on fire.

yes, thats the answer to this situation.

of course its impossible to defend all faiths, what the guy is saying is right.

thats why you have tensions between different groups in the country - because they are different.

[Tom Paine]

Just because he's a member of the CofE doesn't make him sane... seriously. Let's be honest here, we should divorce the Church from the state once and for all, and end the CofE. Its pointless and waste. Why leave it locked to the monarchy now the threat from the Catholics is ended?

[Reidy]

Just because he's a member of the CofE doesn't make him sane... seriously. Let's be honest here, we should divorce the Church from the state once and for all, and end the CofE. Its pointless and waste. Why leave it locked to the monarchy now the threat from the Catholics is ended?

Perhaps there is a different "threat"?

[Last Roman]

Perhaps there is a different "threat"?

such as....?

[Carach]

such as....?

islam.

(ONOES! im gonna be called a racist ! )

[imb39]

islam.

(ONOES! im gonna be called a racist ! )

No, just predictable. There are other more potent threats to Britain, none of them are faiths.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't see there being a great problem with defending all faiths. I mean, unless the religions of rural Britain start fighting in the church yards, which I personally find unlikely.

[Odovacar]

A man named Nazir-Ali is the bishop of Rochester??
I think this is rather an arabic name or what? Please enlighten me...

[removeduser_487563287433]

A man named Nazir-Ali is the bishop of Rochester??
I think this is rather an arabic name or what? Please enlighten me...

He's Nigerian or some such.

[Tom Paine]

A man named Nazir-Ali is the bishop of Rochester??
I think this is rather an arabic name or what? Please enlighten me...

Which being why him railing against multiculturalism and pluralism is so ironic and foolish...

[Tony83]

Prince Charles takes a lot of flack these days but I say power to his elbow on this one. He's pragmatic in that he's identified divisions in our society caused by religious differences, and I think it's courageous of him to try and move with the times and do what he can to reduce racial and religious tensions.

Religions should be disestablished from the state, in the UK, as the Church of England is hardly relevant in most of our lives (more people go to soccer matches than chuch). I find it ironic that the Heir Apparent seems to be more in tune with modern day Britain than our elected leaders.

It's ridiculous that religions that worship the same God should be at such loggerheads.

[Carach]

Which being why him railing against multiculturalism and pluralism is so ironic and foolish...

he isnt really? not from that source anyway, he is being realistic.

No, just predictable. There are other more potent threats to Britain, none of them are faiths.

go on, enlighten me...

[Garbarsardar]

I sympathise with your concerns but please try to maintain a resemblance that you somehow keep it on topic..

[Søren]

Prince Charles position is only un-tenable if he supports each religion's ideology. Something which would obviously mean self-contradiction.

What he can do, however, is be a figurehead for defending faiths from illegal harassement.

Which being why him railing against multiculturalism and pluralism is so ironic and foolish...

It depends what he means.

Given the ambiguosity of both his statements in the interview and also the very title of 'Defender' I would not be so quick to interpret it as "railing against multiculturalism and pluralism ".

No, just predictable. There are other more potent threats to Britain, none of them are faiths.

Arguably Islam poses a considerable internal threat indirectly.

Through the way in which it's teachings are siezed upon by militant groups.

I'm not sure whether you're suggesting a direct or indirect threat though, Carach?

edit: actually looking at Carach's quote again I see he is reffering to Islam as a reason to re-confirm Christianity as official. Presumably he is reffering to it as a direct one, then.

[Caesar Germanico]

islam is hardly a threat to uk and the world..luckly religion still threat but not as before..

[DasBoot]

I assume that when he says he wants to be a 'defender of faith', he means defender of the right to freedom of religion. Being 'defender of the faith' is a bit anachronistic since it implies that only one faith is an acceptable way of life in society, not a helpful position for the titular head of state of a pluralistic nation. The monarchy is all about symbolism these days, so a symbolic change to represent the pluralistic nature of his future kingdom would be quite legitimate.

[Drunken]

I don't think that Charles should defend one religion more than another. If the UK is ever going to be multi cultural and non-racist (not that all or even the majority of people are racist ) then he would need not to be seen siding with one religion and ignoring the others.

I think that "Defender of Faith" would make much more sense, just defending all peoples right to hold whatever religion they wish, rather than defending only Christians, then leading to perhaps creating a wider rift between cultures.