Friday, July 07, 2006

Slayer

Apparently there is a campaign within the Church of England to replace their patron saint, Saint George, with a different one, namely Saint Alban. The reason for this change is that Saint George is strongly associated with The Crusades, and certain members of the clergy are concerned that he is offensive to Muslims.


Let's take a slight pause here, while I beat my head against a wall long enough to destroy the areas of the brain devoted to snark and sarcasm. Ow, ow, ow, ow ow, OW! Ah, that's better.


Erm, guys? THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ITSELF IS OFFENSIVE TO MUSLIMS. It claims that what the Muslims regard as a mere human prophet was/is the Son of God, which in their eyes is blasphemy. Dicking about with a patron saint and his flag is small change compared to this larger, more fundamental issue.


Let's face it, the only way for the Church of England not to be offensive to Muslims is to disband. Actually, now that I think about it, the only way for the Church of England not to be offensive to ME is to disband. We have a two birds with one stone situation here, guys. Think about it.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Matthew Jarvis said...

If you're going to go to all the trouble of changing your patron saint (I thought the Church of England was Protestant, anyway?), why replace one stuffy old dead guy with armour with another stuffy old dead guy with a habit? Why not take the opportunity to modernise your image? Try and appeal to the iPod generation?

The Church of Apple has already claimed Jonathon Ives, but why not Buffy Summers? She's even a slayer of fell creatures!

I don't think there's any technical, legal reason Ms Summers could not be canonised - excepting that the Church of England doesn't actually do saintings. She certainly fought the good fight against the forces of darkness and prevailed. Although last seen alive, she has certainly died. Twice. And the mere fact of being fictional hasn't yet seemed to pose any obstacle to canonisation.

On a more serious note, it's actually quite understandable that Muslims would be a bit touchy about the Crusades. They got their assorted beasts of burden thoroughly whupped, and it's all been going downhill since then. Personally, I'd be incredibly sensitive if I'd tried to invade Europe and received a whupping at the hands of the FRENCH!

Croissant, anyone?

(Ok. Because no-one studies history anymore... The story is that croissant were first baked in Vienna to celebrate the defeat of the Turkish seige of Vienna in 1683.)

11:54 PM  
Blogger phaedrus said...

Partially related

12:47 AM  
Anonymous Matthew Jarvis said...

It's a good thing Islam is the religion of peace, Phaedrus, otherwise I'd be worried.

Why do Muslims hate the West (I can't really call it Christendom) so much? It's been suggested it's simply because we make them feel so inadequate. See Dr Sanity at http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

It must be kind of awkward to be the true believers, with god on your side, waging god's holy war, and to find yourself being constantly being pushed around by the infidels.

Once upon a time, people were much more realistic about this kind of thing. They'd get themselves thoroughly defeated in battle, realise that their god wasn't up to snuff, and promptly convert to the god of the victors (which would also be the astute thing to do from a survival perspective, as well).

An example: back in '48 the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attacked the fledgling, outnumbered, outgunned, Israel and were roundly defeated, Israel expanding its territory by 26% odd percent. You'd think a defeat of that magnitude would raise some theological questions, wouldn't you?

7:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home