[By the way, I was able to find that stained-glass window on-line, along with info about the church itself. Apparently, they had six windows dedicated to "Puritan worthies", including Milton.]
I only remember that one. Mind you, I wasn’t in there for long.
[By the way, I was able to find that stained-glass window on-line, along with info about the church itself. Apparently, they had six windows dedicated to "Puritan worthies", including Milton.]
I only remember that one. Mind you, I wasn’t in there for long.
FWIW, I am right this moment waiting for the bus across the street from Lester B. Pearson Catholic High School. Lester B. Pearson having been a Methodist.
[By the way, I was able to find that stained-glass window on-line, along with info about the church itself. Apparently, they had six windows dedicated to "Puritan worthies", including Milton.]
I only remember that one. Mind you, I wasn’t in there for long.
FWIW, I am right this moment waiting for the bus across the street from Lester B. Pearson Catholic High School. Lester B. Pearson having been a Methodist.
[By the way, I was able to find that stained-glass window on-line, along with info about the church itself. Apparently, they had six windows dedicated to "Puritan worthies", including Milton.]
I only remember that one. Mind you, I wasn’t in there for long.
FWIW, I am right this moment waiting for the bus across the street from Lester B. Pearson Catholic High School. Lester B. Pearson having been a Methodist.
Wonderful!
And he was a son of the manse, to boot.
Historically, the religious politics of the successive whiggish parties in Canada had as their only consistent theme "Eff off, Anglicans", with Catholics often, though not always, among those returning the favour at the ballot box. That was still remembered here and there as part of the Liberal brand when the school was named, but likely not the officially cited reason.
I mean, I agree, but that's also a work of fiction.
The last scene of that movie ends with the dissolution of parliament, and has Cromwell inconspicuously entering at the exact moment someone is giving a speech about how MPs have the right to rob the public blind. During the banishing, someone points out to OC that this is the sorta thing that he had Charles I executed for, but this tone is quickly set aside for Cromwell giving a speech about how he's now gonna do lotsa good stuff for the people like open schools and universities. A narrator then intones how all this paved the way for modern democracy.
Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with my comment.
I mean, I agree, but that's also a work of fiction.
The last scene of that movie ends with the dissolution of parliament, and has Cromwell inconspicuously entering at the exact moment someone is giving a speech about how MPs have the right to rob the public blind. During the banishing, someone points out to OC that this is the sorta thing that he had Charles I executed for, but this tone is quickly set aside for Cromwell giving a speech about how he's now gonna do lotsa good stuff for the people like open schools and universities. A narrator then intones how all this paved the way for modern democracy.
Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with my comment.
Sorry. More related to the overall context of @ChastMastr calling Cromwell "foul". Just reflecting on how that compared with the scene and the narrator's words.
Yaxley-Lennon has announced that he's organising a big carol concert and nationalistic rally in London on 13th December. He's also (see video in link) enlisted various questionable clergy in support.
Do any shipmates recognise any of them, know anything about them or what denominations they come from? I don't think the 'bishop' is a real one.
Do any shipmates recognise any of them, know anything about them or what denominations they come from? I don't think the 'bishop' is a real one.
I think the guy with the permanent five o'clock shadow claims to be in the ACNA while running an online only church that's part of the continuing Anglican movement. I assume the others similar exist in the liminal space provided by various Anglican adjacent groupuscles.
Second Post
Going back to the original post, I do not know enough about the Roman Catholic Church in the 1920s or about Pope Pius XI to say anything useful on the subject. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy acquired a dodgy reputation for favouring authoritarian, right wing fascist and quasi-fascist regimes from the 1930s until the 1960s, especially in the 'Latin' speaking countries, provided they were pro-catholic, rather than hostile to the church. The Magisterium gave the impression that it preferred anything to any sort of free-thinkers, Free Masons or Marxism, and that prevailed over any reservations about much else, viz, Franco's Spain, and much of Latin America.
Was this there from Quas Primus and the introduction of the feast of Christ the King in 1925, or did this develop in the following 10 years? Are there any shipmates who know more about this and can usefully comment?
During the Civil War, both sides claimed God was on their side, to which Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said his concern was whether the Union was on God's side. Big difference. Down to today, where Pete Hegseth is a known member of a Christian Nationalist cult ordering the sinking of alleged drug boats and the killing of everyone on board. Frankly, going more than one step too far, in my book.
Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, seems to be trying to co-opt the rhetoric of nationalism (which was the ideology of the day) and remake it to a different end: the idea of creating a new nation, not one rooted in time immemorial, and one dedicated to a proposition, not to mystical bonds of blood and soil. It seemed to work for a while.
During the Civil War, both sides claimed God was on their side, to which Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said his concern was whether the Union was on God's side. Big difference. Down to today, where Pete Hegseth is a known member of a Christian Nationalist cult ordering the sinking of alleged drug boats and the killing of everyone on board. Frankly, going more than one step too far, in my book.
Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, seems to be trying to co-opt the rhetoric of nationalism (which was the ideology of the day) and remake it to a different end: the idea of creating a new nation, not one rooted in time immemorial, and one dedicated to a proposition, not to mystical bonds of blood and soil. It seemed to work for a while.
World@One had a brief slot on this (Christian Nationalism, not Abraham Lincoln) today, with interviewees Arun Arora, suffragan bishop of Kirkstall, and Professor Linda Woodhead. Alas, I did not get the impression that Sarah Montague, who was presenting today, had enough understanding of the issues to be able to ask questions that would elucidate any worthwhile answers. Before their interviews, there was a brief sound snippet of the freelance bishop Ceirion Dewer, impassioned words, probably from the last rally, but not a great deal of content.
Bishop Arora was very explicit that Christianity is for everyone, and not just English, Brits or whoever. He has tried to reach out both to the migrants accommodated in the hotels and the thugs demonstrating outside them, but the slot was too short to give space to explore whether he had managed to get the latter to open up on what they claim drives them, or what this might have to do with Christianity.
He did make the point, which I think most people who reflect on the subject need to explore within themselves, that he was glad that Yaxley-Lennon claims to have found Christ in prison, but there was not the space to go much further into the important question whether he has appropriated Jesus to Yaxley-Lennon's cause rather than followed him, or whether Y-L sees that there might be a difference.
It is very difficult to be directly critical of the bona fides of those who say they believe but do so to advocate very different positions from one's own without sounding either self-righteous or unwarrantably judgemental.
For all her august credentials and readiness to launch in on most things, I did not think Professor Woodhead had anything useful to say at all. Her main point was that hitherto 'the cross' had not usually been much used as a slogan in UK politics, and that this had been more associated with the U.S.A. Even Sarah Montague had enough knowledge of history to remind her of the crusades.
During the Civil War, both sides claimed God was on their side, to which Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said his concern was whether the Union was on God's side. Big difference. Down to today, where Pete Hegseth is a known member of a Christian Nationalist cult ordering the sinking of alleged drug boats and the killing of everyone on board. Frankly, going more than one step too far, in my book.
Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, seems to be trying to co-opt the rhetoric of nationalism (which was the ideology of the day) and remake it to a different end: the idea of creating a new nation, not one rooted in time immemorial, and one dedicated to a proposition, not to mystical bonds of blood and soil. It seemed to work for a while.
During the Civil War, both sides claimed God was on their side, to which Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said his concern was whether the Union was on God's side. Big difference. Down to today, where Pete Hegseth is a known member of a Christian Nationalist cult ordering the sinking of alleged drug boats and the killing of everyone on board. Frankly, going more than one step too far, in my book.
Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, seems to be trying to co-opt the rhetoric of nationalism (which was the ideology of the day) and remake it to a different end: the idea of creating a new nation, not one rooted in time immemorial, and one dedicated to a proposition, not to mystical bonds of blood and soil. It seemed to work for a while.
There is little evidence that Oliver Cromwell personally smashed statues; that is a fictional portrayal of puritanism's tendency toward iconoclasm. Here is a measured account of what went on.
Cromwell may not have been undecided on religion, but he was actually tolerant. His solution to what sort of church the Church of England should be was that it should be what the parish wanted it to be. He welcomed the Jews back into England.
Please also realise Oliver Cromwell is only distantly related to Thomas Cromwell, who probably did far more to destroy English churches about a century earlier.
He did make the point, which I think most people who reflect on the subject need to explore within themselves, that he was glad that Yaxley-Lennon claims to have found Christ in prison, but there was not the space to go much further into the important question whether he has appropriated Jesus to Yaxley-Lennon's cause rather than followed him, or whether Y-L sees that there might be a difference.
Given the his past record of professed reversals, I'll wait for evidence that Christianity has produced some change, as opposed to being merely recruited as another reason to continue what he was doing anyway.
There is little evidence that Oliver Cromwell personally smashed statues; that is a fictional portrayal of puritanism's tendency toward iconoclasm. Here is a measured account of what went on.
Cromwell may not have been undecided on religion, but he was actually tolerant. His solution to what sort of church the Church of England should be was that it should be what the parish wanted it to be. He welcomed the Jews back into England.
Please also realise Oliver Cromwell is only distantly related to Thomas Cromwell, who probably did far more to destroy English churches about a century earlier.
Thanks for the link. I'll give it a read.
It wasn't until my third or fourth reading of 1984 that I noticed that Cromwell was seemingly the only pre-Ingsoc figure revered in Oceania. I assume that was because, for Orwell, he represented the authoritarian mode of an ostensibly egalitarian, morally conservative English ideology.
But which Cromwell was Orwell referring to? Both were powerful men within English history. Just saying Cromwell is ambiguous.
Look, a similarly closely related connection is John and Charles Wesley and the Duke of Wellington. Nobody would try and confuse that connection. They do share the same surname.
But which Cromwell was Orwell referring to? Both were powerful men within English history. Just saying Cromwell is ambiguous.
Look, a similarly closely related connection is John and Charles Wesley and the Duke of Wellington. Nobody would try and confuse that connection. They do share the same surname.
IME, "Cromwell", not otherwise specified, refers to Oliver.
But which Cromwell was Orwell referring to? Both were powerful men within English history. Just saying Cromwell is ambiguous.
Look, a similarly closely related connection is John and Charles Wesley and the Duke of Wellington. Nobody would try and confuse that connection. They do share the same surname.
IME, "Cromwell", not otherwise specified, refers to Oliver.
Yes. And I just looked it up, and assuming the quote on reddit is correct, Orwell does, in fact, say "Oliver Cromwell".
Does Tommy Robinson not know that the missionary who brought Christianity back to England was in a group of about 40 single men who arrived on the Kent coast in a small boat?
He did make the point, which I think most people who reflect on the subject need to explore within themselves, that he was glad that Yaxley-Lennon claims to have found Christ in prison, but there was not the space to go much further into the important question whether he has appropriated Jesus to Yaxley-Lennon's cause rather than followed him, or whether Y-L sees that there might be a difference.
Given the his past record of professed reversals, I'll wait for evidence that Christianity has produced some change, as opposed to being merely recruited as another reason to continue what he was doing anyway.
While I believe he was Christian all his life, dixiecrat icon George Wallace claimed some sorta born-again experience after his shooting in '72, and by '82 had worked it into his redemption story about why he was now a racial liberal worthy of Black votes.
Granted, from my third-hand impressions of Yaxley-Lennon, he doesn't seem like he'd be anywhere near Wallace's machiavellian genius, and is probably just a one-trick pony. Could be wrong, open to insight from the better-informed, but he really seems like one of those self-aggrandizing one-man band activists, and those guys don't usually adjust themselves well to shifting coalition patterns.
During the Civil War, both sides claimed God was on their side, to which Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said his concern was whether the Union was on God's side. Big difference. Down to today, where Pete Hegseth is a known member of a Christian Nationalist cult ordering the sinking of alleged drug boats and the killing of everyone on board. Frankly, going more than one step too far, in my book.
Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, seems to be trying to co-opt the rhetoric of nationalism (which was the ideology of the day) and remake it to a different end: the idea of creating a new nation, not one rooted in time immemorial, and one dedicated to a proposition, not to mystical bonds of blood and soil. It seemed to work for a while.
Yep. The US gave up on Reconstruction and has been re-fighting the Civil War in slow motion ever since. It looked, for a time, that the Union was grinding out a win but the Confederacy is now in the ascendant.
Does Tommy Robinson not know that the missionary who brought Christianity back to England was in a group of about 40 single men who arrived on the Kent coast in a small boat?
/Tangent/ A snippet remembered from "Lark Rise to Candleford" (1880s): "When Laura was a child, some of the older mothers and the grandmothers still threatened naughty children with the name of Cromwell. 'If you ain't a good gal, old Oliver Crummell'll have 'ee!' they would say, or 'Here comes old Crummell!' just as the mothers of southern England threatened their children with Napoleon. Napoleon was forgotten there; being far from the sea-coast, such places had never known the fear of invasion. But the armies of the Civil War had fought ten miles to the eastward, and the name still lingered". /Ends/
/Tangent/ A snippet remembered from "Lark Rise to Candleford" (1880s): "When Laura was a child, some of the older mothers and the grandmothers still threatened naughty children with the name of Cromwell. 'If you ain't a good gal, old Oliver Crummell'll have 'ee!' they would say, or 'Here comes old Crummell!' just as the mothers of southern England threatened their children with Napoleon. Napoleon was forgotten there; being far from the sea-coast, such places had never known the fear of invasion. But the armies of the Civil War had fought ten miles to the eastward, and the name still lingered". /Ends/
I love that. During my 1970s working class childhood, I was threatened with the workhouse, despite the fact that the local workhouse had closed several decades before and was now a geriatric hospital. Folk memories.
Comments
I only remember that one. Mind you, I wasn’t in there for long.
FWIW, I am right this moment waiting for the bus across the street from Lester B. Pearson Catholic High School. Lester B. Pearson having been a Methodist.
Wonderful!
And he was a son of the manse, to boot.
Historically, the religious politics of the successive whiggish parties in Canada had as their only consistent theme "Eff off, Anglicans", with Catholics often, though not always, among those returning the favour at the ballot box. That was still remembered here and there as part of the Liberal brand when the school was named, but likely not the officially cited reason.
Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with my comment.
Sorry. More related to the overall context of @ChastMastr calling Cromwell "foul". Just reflecting on how that compared with the scene and the narrator's words.
Do any shipmates recognise any of them, know anything about them or what denominations they come from? I don't think the 'bishop' is a real one.
I think the guy with the permanent five o'clock shadow claims to be in the ACNA while running an online only church that's part of the continuing Anglican movement. I assume the others similar exist in the liminal space provided by various Anglican adjacent groupuscles.
Going back to the original post, I do not know enough about the Roman Catholic Church in the 1920s or about Pope Pius XI to say anything useful on the subject. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy acquired a dodgy reputation for favouring authoritarian, right wing fascist and quasi-fascist regimes from the 1930s until the 1960s, especially in the 'Latin' speaking countries, provided they were pro-catholic, rather than hostile to the church. The Magisterium gave the impression that it preferred anything to any sort of free-thinkers, Free Masons or Marxism, and that prevailed over any reservations about much else, viz, Franco's Spain, and much of Latin America.
Was this there from Quas Primus and the introduction of the feast of Christ the King in 1925, or did this develop in the following 10 years? Are there any shipmates who know more about this and can usefully comment?
Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, seems to be trying to co-opt the rhetoric of nationalism (which was the ideology of the day) and remake it to a different end: the idea of creating a new nation, not one rooted in time immemorial, and one dedicated to a proposition, not to mystical bonds of blood and soil. It seemed to work for a while.
Until about 1877?
Bishop Arora was very explicit that Christianity is for everyone, and not just English, Brits or whoever. He has tried to reach out both to the migrants accommodated in the hotels and the thugs demonstrating outside them, but the slot was too short to give space to explore whether he had managed to get the latter to open up on what they claim drives them, or what this might have to do with Christianity.
He did make the point, which I think most people who reflect on the subject need to explore within themselves, that he was glad that Yaxley-Lennon claims to have found Christ in prison, but there was not the space to go much further into the important question whether he has appropriated Jesus to Yaxley-Lennon's cause rather than followed him, or whether Y-L sees that there might be a difference.
It is very difficult to be directly critical of the bona fides of those who say they believe but do so to advocate very different positions from one's own without sounding either self-righteous or unwarrantably judgemental.
For all her august credentials and readiness to launch in on most things, I did not think Professor Woodhead had anything useful to say at all. Her main point was that hitherto 'the cross' had not usually been much used as a slogan in UK politics, and that this had been more associated with the U.S.A. Even Sarah Montague had enough knowledge of history to remind her of the crusades.
What are you referring to @Arethosemyfeet.
I assume the end of Reconstruction.
Cromwell may not have been undecided on religion, but he was actually tolerant. His solution to what sort of church the Church of England should be was that it should be what the parish wanted it to be. He welcomed the Jews back into England.
Please also realise Oliver Cromwell is only distantly related to Thomas Cromwell, who probably did far more to destroy English churches about a century earlier.
Given the his past record of professed reversals, I'll wait for evidence that Christianity has produced some change, as opposed to being merely recruited as another reason to continue what he was doing anyway.
Thanks for the link. I'll give it a read.
It wasn't until my third or fourth reading of 1984 that I noticed that Cromwell was seemingly the only pre-Ingsoc figure revered in Oceania. I assume that was because, for Orwell, he represented the authoritarian mode of an ostensibly egalitarian, morally conservative English ideology.
Look, a similarly closely related connection is John and Charles Wesley and the Duke of Wellington. Nobody would try and confuse that connection. They do share the same surname.
IME, "Cromwell", not otherwise specified, refers to Oliver.
Yes. And I just looked it up, and assuming the quote on reddit is correct, Orwell does, in fact, say "Oliver Cromwell".
While I believe he was Christian all his life, dixiecrat icon George Wallace claimed some sorta born-again experience after his shooting in '72, and by '82 had worked it into his redemption story about why he was now a racial liberal worthy of Black votes.
Granted, from my third-hand impressions of Yaxley-Lennon, he doesn't seem like he'd be anywhere near Wallace's machiavellian genius, and is probably just a one-trick pony. Could be wrong, open to insight from the better-informed, but he really seems like one of those self-aggrandizing one-man band activists, and those guys don't usually adjust themselves well to shifting coalition patterns.
Yep. The US gave up on Reconstruction and has been re-fighting the Civil War in slow motion ever since. It looked, for a time, that the Union was grinding out a win but the Confederacy is now in the ascendant.
Here is why they are the same name, but you will notice something else, the name Garret Wesley in that reply. At the age of 9, Charles Wesley turned down the offer from Mr Garret Wesley to adopt him and make him his heir, an offer taken up by the Duke of Wellington's Grandfather.
To the south of England ... Good point though.