God’s place in a humanist society (23) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

Not only that they are fewer, but British practicing Christians are more and more pressured to hide their faith, in order to go on enjoying the privilege of living in a democratic, progressive and prosperous country like the UK.

Wearing a cross at work, even exhibiting one in an electrician’s van have become unofficial offences that irreligious zealots are eager to punish.

More and more – of the already few! – Christians in Britain are at risk of being put in front of a stark choice: “Take off your cross or you’ll get sacked!”.

Supervisers, bosses, co-workers or any other politically correct authorities have no scruples about threatening Christians like this, whilst no one would dare asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil, a Jew to take off his kippah or a Sikh to renounce his turban.

Indeed, that would be outrageous in a country like Great Britain, wouldn’t it? But shouldn’t the same laws the same right for Christians?

It seems that the answer is definitely negative, according to the Conservative (?!) Chameleon in office at 10 Downing Street.

For the UK Government, wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised Christian practice,” thus it needn’t be supported by the State in front of the ECHR. In a country where any wacky minority can ask for protection, Christians are defenceless…

Then why is the British monarh still called Defender of the Faith? Why is the Union Jack still bearing not one but three crosses?

And what kind of faith is that which the Monarch defends? The faith that Christianity is a relic of history whose demise should be hastened?!

There’s no doubt that being a Christian has become a deficiency for one’s employability in the UK. Unless you’re a New man, you can hardly integrate in a society obsessed with material wealth and with loathing its Christian heritage.

Just like in the USSR, when politically correct bolsheviks in Britain can’t snatch crosses from people’s hearts by brainwashing, they forcibly take them off chests.

They are probably relying on the fact that those of churches will fall by themselves. If not, one day they will take the cross down even from St. Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London…

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

UK’s Prince of Wales, the future Charles III of Romania? [Prinţul Ţării Galilor al UK, viitorul Carol al III-lea al României?]

UK’s current Prince of Wales – let there be no room for confusion, I am refering to Charles Philip Arthur George, the first son of HM Queen Elizabeth II, father of Prince William and Prince Harry :-) – could be the future King of Romania, crowned as Charles III.

Believe it or not, this is one the hottest media topics in Romania these days! As if this country stood serenely above the economic turmoil engulfing the rest of the EU and the planet, and had plenty of time to indulge in political phantasms.

The likelihood – or imminence (?!) – of Romania’s return to monarchy under UK’s Prince of Wales has been intensely discussed in for the past ten days, since Romania’s former King, Mihai I, gave a speech in the Romanian (republican!) Parliament.

As long as Greece’s Prime Minister appears to have gone crazy, hordes of lunatics think of themselves as ‘occupying’ New York City’s Wall Street, and all sorts of nobodies get the chance to have their meteoric planetary celebrity (as defined by Andy Warhol) in our times,  why would the idea of a Romanian King of British stock sound preposterous?

Not only that the idea itself is not crazier than the mad times we are going through; the sly disseminators and the (maybe not so wise :-) supporters of this political Utopia have many (albeit illusory) arguments to feed the debate.

First and foremost, they invoke Prince Charles’ great fondness for Romania and especially for Transylvania (of which I’ve already written on this blog).

There’s hardly any doubt that His Royal Highness (HRH) is passionate about these lands, although, like it sits well with all blue-blooded characters, he’s interested in a lot of other things (I listed many of his interests in a comment to this post).

He’s a relentless supporter of Romania, and – compared to the image of Romanian political leaders, seen as corrupt, self-interested and rapacious traitors – Prince Charles benefits from a Messianic allure.

What if he could mend the broken political establishment of Romania? Couldn’t HRM put out all petty disputes, call to order the daily ‘political circus’, and unite the catastrophically disuntited and depressively disgruntled Romanians around his throne?

What if he could restore the dignity of a nation so badly seen among the other 26 EU or 27 NATO ‘sisters’?

What if, under his supposedly enlightened reign, Romania could be reunited with (the Republic of) Moldova, in defiance of Russia, our archenemy?

This is what some (I don’t know how many) ‘fans’ of Charles (and of the whole monarchic Utopia) could think, claiming that he deserves to be king more than any of the presidents of Romania had deserved their title.

Reading the (pretty long – thus apparently well documented :-) original article on this ‘Charles III issue’ can be an interesting intelectual experience, offering some valuable insights on how Romanians are.

Maybe only one article (nor the scores of opinion columns about it) couldn’t prove how mad and how feasible this Utopia is. However, given these completely insane times, no one should believe that the unthinkable will forevermore remain impossible.

Anyway, let us always bear in mind a witty bit about Romania (already shared with my Romanian readership) that I have learned in the UK from a keen observer of Romanian realities:

“If rumours and conspiracies could be exported, Romania would be the richest country in the world.”

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

God’s place in a humanist society (17) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

No matter how obsolete concepts like ‘God’ or ‘faith’ appear to be in today’s ultra-secular Britain, political leaders sometimes find themselves compelled to speak about religion.

Beautiful churches (like the one in the picture***) may be emptier and emptier (unless they are Catholic and frequented by Polish or other Eastern European emigrants), yet they are still visible. And what they stand for is also visible.

There are instances – most often created by the media, as religion is of no interest for most Britons – when prefabricated ‘religious hot topics’ are unavoidable for politicians.

Be it an irreligious society like the British one has become for the past decades, members of the ruling class – in a country where the head of state (Monarch) is the formal head of a religious institution (Church of England) – sometimes have to explain themselves.

After hiding his papist leanings while in office – a Catholic Prime Minister (PM) would have been such a heresy in Protestant Britan, wouldn’t it? – Tony Bliar’s (this is no spelling mistake :-) started parading his belief.

He has been quite vigorously speaking in defence of his faith and of religion in general for the past years. However, from an Orhodox Christianity perspective, his twisted understanding of Christianity is utterly irrelevant.

His confession “I have always been more interested in religion than politics” (in his book: A Journey) can hardly do anything else but offer more loads of anti-religion ammunition for hardline British atheists.

Then, the son of Church of Scotland minister, Gordon Clown (no mistake here either :-) also claimed that religion is at the center of his Government. He praised Catholic for “being UK’s conscience” but stopped short of becoming a Catholic. At least until now.

These days David Chameleon (-:) is in charge at Downing Street 10. Even before the last elections, he diplomatically tried to distance himself from the (apparent) religiousness of his predecessors:

“My own faith is there, it's not always the rock that perhaps it should be. I've a sort of fairly classic Church of England faith, a faith that grows hotter and colder by moments.”

That’s quite a confession of faith, yet here are some other chameleonic addings:

“I think that it’s perfectly possible to live a good life without having faith, by which I mean a positive and altruistic life, but I think the teachings of Jesus, just as the teachings of other religions, are a good guide to help us through.”

Help us through what?! Chameleon, Bliar & Clown see religion as a mere instrument, meant to help us trough (even through a political career), and ‘Jesus’ is no more than a character – a teacher as good as the founders of other religions.

“I suppose I sort of started life believing that one’s individual faith was important, but actually the institutions of the church were less important. I do think that organised religion can get things wrong, but the Church of England and the other churches do play a very important role in society,” he adds.

Organised religion can get things wrong, while personal religion not?! I don’t understand. But the fact that I don’t understand doesn’t mean that I blame Chameleon, nor the other two PMs before him, of anything.

This is the way in which self-described religious people in a humanist society understand religion. They happen to be political leaders, and their outlook on life and religion is not worse, nor better than that of most Britons.

It would be pointless to accuse them of knowing nothing about Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as even the ‘institutions of organised religion’ in the UK (Church of England, Church of Scotland, Catholic Church etc) know so little about Him.

What I find culpable is their chameleonism. They find it necessary to include references to religion in their public discourse, skilfully trying not too seem ‘too religious’ in their effort of proving that they are not altogether religiously indifferent.

From this perspective, Ed Miliband, the current Labour Party leader, appears worthy of praise for his honesty. He puts it bluntly:  “I don’t believe in God personally.”

His subsequent explanation doesn’t water down his atheist stance: “Different people have different religious views in this country. The great thing is that, whether we have faith or not, we are by and large very tolerant of people whatever their view.”

There’s no doubt that Britain is one of the tolerant countries in the world, nevertheless, Ed Milliband seems to forget that during the glorious years of New Labour rule (1997-2010) more and more British Christians complained of being discriminated.

Two other important political leaders of today’s UK claim to be atheists. One is former Foreign minister David Miliband. The other is deputy PM Nick Clegg.

Both have been accused of a ‘lesser insincerity’ – one has already sent and the other considers sending their children to faith schools.

Only fanatical atheists could blame them for making pragmatic choices. Over and over again, studies show that faith schools are the best in Britain, and even Ed Milliband thinks that these institutions do “a fantastic job” in educating children.

The Lord and none else could know what will happen to Britain with such leaders. Blair claimed to have known Him and to have constantly prayed to Him, while Chameleon says (meaning to emphasize the idea of not being like Bliar) that he has “no direct line to God.”

What matters is that, to a great extent, Britain’s elected leaders (+ the Royal Family) are as irreligious as most of the nation. Neither the elite, nor the electorate could steer the other party in another direction.

*** NOTĂ: The pictured church is the Catholic Cathedral of Westminster, London, the first Catholic place of worship built (1895-1903) in England after the English Reformation. The credit for this photo, taken in February 2011, belongs to my reader Mihai Gociu.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

A royal irrelevance [O irelevanţă regală]

Is an event about which over two billion people (from all over, even the remotes corners of the world) talk about these days really relevant?

There’s no doubt that a massive hysteria has engulfed the country (a funny approach to it in The Independent) for the past months, but let’s assume this is not necessarily something bad. 

As long as Americans feed on the ‘presidential myth’ (resuscitated by Obamania in 2008), why shouldn’t the Brits have their own ‘royal myth’ revived?

Nevertheless, I dare ask: will this royal wedding boast British national pride, will it help weave back the national fabric torn by decades of multiculturalism? Will it change anything for the better for this nation? 

Is Great Britain’s Monarchy “a public relations stunt for British capitalism,” as the Trotskyists from The Socialist Worker claim?

To what extent is the Royal Family an asset or a burdening liability? Will the royal subjects feel duped when the news of a royal divorce will break? 

Would anyone invoke the cost of the ceremony – tens of millions of pounds, taken from HM Treasury’s (the taxpayers’) coffers, not from Her Majesty’s purse – if the country were to sink deeper into the economic crisis it has endured for the past years?

There’s hardly any doubt that a royal ceremony is an astonishing thing to watch – worth exploiting as a ‘great show’. Yet how relevant it actually is for today’s Britain?

May the Lord – Whose name was often invoked by Anglican wedding ceremony – bless Prince William and his wife Catherine! ...but I’m afraid no blessing ever comes from such ‘great shows’.

Especially if the ‘blessing’ was given by a dying institution (the Church of England) which is so far from truly knowing the Lord Whom the last Orthodox kings of England (before 1066) were serving.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

[EN] Not worth trying in the UK / [RO] Nu merită încercat în UK (16)

[EN] Hard to say why people are queuing to see this rather unspectacular palace… at least from the outside.

[RO] Greu de zis de ce oamenii stau la coadă să vadă acest palat mai degrabă nespectaculos… cel puţin de afară.

[EN] Are they really as naive as to believe that the Queen could ever wave a hand from behind the curtains in one of her apartments?!

[RO] Sunt ei atât de naivi să creadă că Regina ar putea să facă cu mâna vreodată din spatele draperiilor dint-unul din apartamentele sale?!

[EN] There are far more beautiful buldings in London than this overstated Buckingham Palace, and even this Sheriff Court from Inverness seemed more charming to me.

[RO] Există mult mai multe clădiri frumoase în Londra decât acest supraapreciat Buckingham Palace şi chiar această Sheriff Court din Inverness mi-a părut mie mai fermecătoare.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

[EN] Hail to competing sites / [RO] Salutări siteurilor concurente (8)

[EN] I don’t know whether he ever read a poem by Mihai Eminescu... [RO] Nu ştiu dacă a citit vreodată o poezie de Mihai Eminescu...

[EN] ....but His Royal Highness Charles, the Prince of Wales, patronizes a foundation which bears the name of Romania’s national poet. [RO] ...dar Alteţa Sa Regală, Charles, Prinţul de Wales, are sub patronajul său o fundaţie care poartă numele poetului naţional al României.

[EN] This Mihai Eminescu Trust (MET) probably does many good things… in preserving the architectural heritage of the Saxon villages in Transylvania… [RO] Această Mihai Eminescu Trust (MET) ptobabil că face multe lucruri bune… în conservarea moştenirii arhitectonice a satelor săseşti din Transilvania.

[EN] …but what does this have to do with Eminescu?! [RO] …dar ce are aceasta de-a face cu Eminescu?

[EN] Apart from the poet’s fascination with Transylvania and the German culture, I don’t see any connection. [RO] În afară de fascinaţia poetului pentru Transilvania şi cultura germană, nu văd nicio legătură.

[EN] Nor have I noticed on MET’s website any special reference to this overhwhelming personality – poet, jurnalist… and martyr. [RO] Nici nu am observat pe siteul MET vreo referire specială la copleşitoarea lui personalitate – poet, jurnalist... martir.

[EN] According to a good-established custom (although the exact date of bith is disputed), Eminescu was born on this day born 160 years ago. [RO] Conform unei tradiţii bine-stabilite (deşi data exactă a naşterii rămâne este disputată), Eminescu s-a născut în această zi cu 160 de ani în urmă.

[EN] His place in Romanian culture matches the place of William Shakespeare in English culture. One could hardly find any author at least half as influent as him. [RO] Locul lui în cultura română este echivalent cu locul lui William Shakespeare în cultura engleză. Cu greu ar găsi cineva vreun autor măcar pe jumătate influent ca el.

[EN] The more some protest against this ‘dogma’, the more they prove his unrivalled place in Romanians’ history. [RO] Cu cât unii protestează împotriva acestei ‘dogme’, cu atât dovedesc mai mult locul său fără rival în istoria românilor.

[EN] Just like Shakespeare still has a lot to say about the English (and all Britons), Eminescu wrote about Romanians, as if he were writing today. [RO] Întocmai cum Shakespeare are încă multe de zis despre englezi (şi toţi britanicii), Eminescu a scris despre români de parcă ar fi scris azi.

[EN] If anyone landed on this blog has a bit of time for something else beyond the daily rush to nowhere, here are some of his writings. [RO] Dacă cineva a aterizat pe acest blog şi are un răgaz pentru altceva decât graba zilnică înspre nicăieri, iată câteva din scrierile sale.

[EN] Poems: here, here, here. And an article about how Romania was, is, and – God forbid! – will always be ruled. [RO] Poezii: aici, aici, aici. Şi un articol despre cum România era, este şi – Doamne-fereşte! – va fi condusă întotdeauna.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]