 The self-proclaimed hairy lefty Archdruid Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed his unwillingness to conduct a thanksgiving service for the end of the war in Iraq, fearing that it could appear triumphalist. Dr Rowan Williams has told No 10, which is drawing up plans to honour the Armed Forces, that he would be happy to lead or preach at a memorial service, which would have a sombre tone. But in a break with tradition which will disappoint many in the forces, he has indicated to friends that he is reluctant to take part in a national religious event which might seem to bless conflict.
Try thinking of it as the defeat of a great evil by the careful and minimal application of lesser evil. We do. But if you regard our armed forces as the agents of Satan, whatever they do, why not just come out and say it? That would be more honest, and preferable to making them out to be part-time criminals.
| To bless the defeat of a great evil first requires a belief in evil... |
Major wars in the past century have been marked by thanksgiving services, which express the nation's thanks for the forces as well as remembering the dead. There have also been victory parades through the streets of London. After the 1982 Falklands conflict, Margaret Thatcher was said to have been angry when the late Lord Runcie, then Archbishop of Canterbury, preached a sermon at the thanksgiving service in St Paul's calling for Christian reconciliation. He said that the Argentine dead should be remembered as well as the British. A remembrance and thanksgiving service for those who served in the 1991 Gulf war was held in Glasgow Cathedral, despite warnings by the Rt Rev David Jenkins, then Bishop of Durham, that any triumphalism would be "perfectly appropriate obscene".
| Makes you wonder, when churchmen are dismayed at the defeat of evil. But, like I say, first you've got to believe in it... |
Insiders said that Dr Williams, whose anti-war rhetoric in the approach to the war against Iraq irritated Downing Street, would feel awkward about taking part in a service which might appear to be at odds with his utterly discredited trendy beliefs. Calls for such an event are expected to grow over the coming months. But Dr Williams's reservations echo those of other senior figures, who feel that a thanksgiving service would send the wrong message to the Iraqi people.
The desired message, then, would be something like "Our boys and girls fought and died for your freedom. Our priests will duly shame and stigmatise them on their return."
Tony Blair said last month that "It would be extraordinary if we did not denote by a major event what has happened. There will be a major celebration." John Reid, the Leader of the House, said the event "could take one of various forms of memorial service or some form of homecoming parade". But Adml Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said last month that a victory parade might appear "arrogant or patronising about the Iraqi children, puppies, kittens, baby ducks, people".
| Might it appear arrogant if the defeat of their entire army wasn't something to take pride in? All in a day's work, so to speak, like taking out the trash? |
A national event is not likely to be staged for months because troops are expected to remain in Iraq for some time. America also plans to mark the end of the war. Church liturgists said that, although the contents of memorial and thanksgiving services were virtually interchangeable, the nomenclature indicated the overall tone. "The Archbishop may want the service to focus on a remembrance of those who died rather than on any sense of a righteous victory," one said. The Dean of St Paul's, the Very Rev John Moses, said: "We must remember with thanksgiving the dead of our Armed Forces, but we must also be alert to the sensitivities of the Arab world and those in our own country who were opposed to military action."
I.e. Can't possibly offend the massed ranks of the confused and the wrong.
| And the sensitivities of Brits don't count for a hill of beans next to those of the Arabs... |
|