St. George too warlike?

“The Church of England is considering rejecting England’s patron saint St George on the grounds that his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims,” reports the Daily Mail.

This is one of those items that are beyond comment.

* * *

Several readers, however, have comments.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

This is bizarre.

Just yesterday, I was looking for a medal to send along with a friend to Iraq (he is a Marine). I came across a beautiful St. George medal and thought to myself, “How long until this patron saint is repudiated by the English establishment as offensive to Muslims?” And then I read your entry today.

I have nothing special to add since, as you say, such things are beyond comment. But the coincidence was such a shock I just had to share it. Most surprising of all is just how mindless and predictable this civilizational decay has become. All assertions of the self—that is “me”—are to be promoted and embraced as positive goods in themselves, while all assertions of the nation—that is “us”—are forbidden.

Truly, we invite God’s judgment. And when it arrives many among us will proclaim in a fit of self-pity that the calamity demonstrates that there is no God.

Just a bit of morning cheer for you!

Theodora from Romania writes:

I would have a comment to this story. My suggestion for the PC crowd, including the one from the Church of England, is to replace St. George with Dracula. The most famous vampire is also the most politically correct character in the world: he is always offended by saints and crosses.

Karen writes from England:

Changing the flag shows what a pathetic body is the C. of E. Some chance of mounting a crusade!

LA writes:

Karen’s comment finally inspires one from me. Think of it. The symbol of the Church of England and of the Episcopal Church, the St. George’s cross, is one of the most familiar images in our world, located in front of every Episcopal and (I believe) Anglican church (the white field in the below image blends with the background so that only the cross is visible):

And these unspeakable characters in the C. of E. think that if a Muslim sees that red cross on that white field, he’ll think of St. George, which in turn will make him think of the Crusades (since the Crusaders fought in the name of St. George), which in turn will offend his dear little Muslim sensibilities. But if the Church removes the symbol, stripping away this familiar and well-loved part of our culture, the offense to Muslims will be removed and all will be well.

Of course, removing the St. George’s cross from the flag of the C. of E. will no more appease Muslims than handing them 100 percent of the West Bank.

The flag of the St. George’s Cross was also the flag of the Kingdom of England, prior to the Union with Scotland, at which time the St. George’s cross was combined with St. Andrew’s cross from the Scottish flag (a white diagonal cross on a blue field) to form the magnificent Union Jack (or maybe the proper name is the Union Flag):

Obviously, if St. George’s cross must be cease to be the symbol of the Church of England, it must be removed from Great Britain’s flag as well. Already I can see in my mind’s eye the ceremony where the new flag is unveiled, presided over by the Honorary Imam Charles, Defender of the Faiths.

David B. writes:

Apparently, things are even worse in Britain than they are here. Eventually, it will happen here. There will be demands that the American flag was adopted in a “racist country,” and doesn’t fit the New Multicultural Society. Or, it will start as it has in Britain. White liberals will call for change in the flag themselves.

LA replies:

That logic was always there. For example, if the Confederate flag (and anything to do with the Confederacy) is not acceptable, because slavery existed under the Confederacy, well, then, the U.S. flag (and anything to do with the United States) is also not acceptable, since slavery existed under the United States.

Yet when Republican politician get caught by Confederacy-related issues, they never pick up on this. For example, during the 2000 campaign, there was some controversy because a Republican fundraiser or conference of some kind had taken place at a house which was a former plantation, and George W. Bush had to deal with that. I forget exactly what the issue was, or what he said about it, but it didn’t occur to him to throw the charge back at the liberals and say: “If we can’t use a house that was once part of a plantation that had slaves, then we can’t use anything in the United States that ever had anything to do with slaves. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Should we shut down Mount Vernon and Jefferson’s home? There were slaves in Washington, D.C. Should we shut down Washington D.C. and set up a new capital elsewhere? Slavery was once legal in the United States. Should we shut down the United States? Since you don’t believe we should shut down the United States because it once had slaves, why then are you attacking Republicans for having a meeting at a house that was once connected with slavery? It’s a phony issue, used for one purpose and one purpose only, to make Republicans look bad.”

Imagine if Bush or other Republican politicians ever spoke like that. But it will never happen. Americans—maybe all modern Western people—are non-conceptual. No one ever thinks out the logic that is at work in various dishonest leftist positions, and exposes the logic as such.

But what is worse, such issues are not only used in a dishonest double standard to “get” conservatives and Republicans. As the logic of the leftist position keeps unfolding over time, the special exceptions given to Democrats on these issues will ultimately be put aside, the double standard will become a single standard, and it will become a matter of literally eliminating the British flag or the American flag, of literally eliminating Britain or the United States. The true telos or end of liberalism—and I define liberalism as the rule of society by liberalism—is to destroy all existing Western countries. To be a conservative in the real sense (which I call traditionalism) is to recognize this destructive logic and oppose liberalism on that basis, in all its manifestations.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2006 02:19 PM | Send