Can't see Anything Wrong with the King's Easter Message 🤔🤔?

[StephieSlade84]

Seen loads of people on social media kicking off about the King's Easter message, but I can't see anything wrong with it - although it mentions other religions ONCE, I feel like it was in a way to show the similar values that all religions show (at least when they aren't going overboard) and it's showing the Christian values of kindness and tolerance.

One of the puzzles of our humanity is how we are capable of both great cruelty and great kindness. This paradox of human life runs through the Easter story and in the scenes that daily come before our eyes — at one moment, terrible images of human suffering and, in another, heroic acts in war-torn countries where humanitarians of every kind risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. A few weeks ago, I met many such people at a reception in Buckingham Palace and felt a profound sense of admiration for their resilience, courage and compassion.

On Maundy Thursday, Jesus knelt and washed the feet of many of those who would abandon Him. His humble action was a token of His love that knew no bounds or boundaries and is central to Christian belief.

The love He showed when he walked the Earth reflected the Jewish ethic of caring for the stranger and those in need, a deep human instinct echoed in Islam and other religious traditions, and in the hearts of all who seek the good of others.

The abiding message of Easter is that God so loved the world — the whole world — that He sent His son to live among us to show us how to love one another, and to lay down His own life for others in a love that proved stronger than death.

There are three virtues that the world still needs — faith, hope and love. “And the greatest of these is love”.

It is with these timeless truths in my mind, and my heart, that I wish you all a blessed and peaceful Easter.

Charles R

Was this on X? X is now the app for spotting how the UK is being turned into an Islamic state however illogical the explanation. Eg there were plenty of comments on X about the SC ruling on the Equality Act as something done to appeal to Muslim voters.

What a sewer X is. You'd have to be both ignorant of how the judicial system works and obsessed with the threat from radical Islam to draw this conclusion.

It seems a fairly innocuous statement.

The UK is culturally Christian country (e.g. public holidays are largely based on Christian celebrations, state schools are supposed to.provide a daily provision of collective worship) so making links to other faiths is about supporting minorities to feel welcome in a country that is set up - in some ways - to exclude them. A very loving and Christian approach, from my reading of the Bible.

It is sad that the person who was foisted on us and is entitled to call himself a king, awarded himself the title 'defender of faiths' and is not able to live up to the part of his job description that says he should be defender of the Faith. He is human, he lacks integrity.

It was a lovely fluffy feel-good speech and within his self-awarded title. Shame he failed in his actual role, the one he is paid mega-bucks for with free housing and lots of lovely uniforms, medals and ribbons thrown in for good measure; but that is nothing new and he is hardly likely to get the sack or be forced to go for retraining.

This about nails it :

I think a lot of people are ignoring the message and just focusing on something that isn't there.

Apart from anything else, someone needs to.

Charles talked in the past about being a defender of faith but he dropped that once he ascended to the throne and was crowned as the Defender of the Faith. No ambiguity there.

You have quoted me and I don't see what point you are making re ambiguity? There is no ambiguity.

Charles Mountbatten-Windsor wanted to be 'defender of faiths', plural. There is no such thing, and is merely a new title he wanted to award himself. Maybe he is not a Christian? I've no idea what is his thinking. Maybe he just likes the idea of being all things to all people?

As a constitutional king of the UK, it is not his choice: he is automatically given the title 'defender of THE Faith', ie, singular: the one true faith, Christianity - the faith of his realm. He cannot, even though he wants to be, 'defender of [all] faiths'. It is meaningless. As for the rest, I repeat my previous post on the matter.

As Defender of the Faith, he is oathbound to do just that, but also has acknowledged that there are other faiths followed by UK citizens.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
I do wish however, that he had mentioned paganism by name, which is the indigenous religion of the British Isles. - and one where the Spring Festival that the Christians turned into Easter originated.

My point was that the promise he made when the time came was to be the Defender of the Faith. Like many things when he was actually crowned Charles chose to be far more conventional than expected. He didn't change the wording in the Coronation service as he had previously suggested he would.

Did he 'award himself a title'? Or simply say he would approach being Defender of the Faith as someone who would value and defend all faiths?

In the context of the CofE, and Christianity in general, being very embedded in the UK.

Charles Mountbatten-Windsor had no choice, if he wanted to be king. The UK monarch automatically has the title 'defender of THE [one, Christian] Faith'. It is what it is. It is not up to him, nor within his remit, to change it nor to omit it. He would have been quietly 'put right' before his coronation.

Maybe his 'Easter' speech was his way of stamping his foot against the status quo, similar to how he demonstrated entitled arrogance towards the folk handing him a fountain pen? It was a very fluffy feel good speech and I'm sure he felt virtuous in its delivery. I neither know, nor care. By the Lord God Almighty's standard he is an imperfect human being, just like everyone.

Anyone who doesn't get it regarding his 'religious' title, needs a history lesson in the UK's constitution and the history of the established Church of England.

I will observe that it is rather arrogant of him to think other religions want, or need him to defend them as a 'defender of [all] faiths' but I guess that comes with the territory of being entitled. Some might say 'who does he think he is', but being a king I guess gets pretty high up in Top Trumps. But either way, mister, you only get the one - not them all. 😆

The thing is there are some countries where all faiths are not allowed so I believe it is a good reminder that we are a country of religious freedom. Showing respect to another religion is not arrogance in my opinion.

I’m a bit bemused by posters criticising Charles’ inclusive tone. Not only is it absolutely the right approach in the 21st century, but it also reflects the message and ethos found in many CofE churches. The Church has long embraced both an ecumenical and interfaith outlook, fostering cooperation with other Christian denominations and building relationships with different faith communities. So Charles is rather aligned 👏

edited to add
The posters fuming about the speech likely don’t attend church. If they did, they’d know that this inclusive approach is very much in line with the current direction of many Church of England congregations. Their outrage comes across as all the more ignorant and hypocritical in light of that.

NullAndCoy

Very much agree, especially with your addition.

A well-written message.

One’s Christian faith would have to be very weak indeed to be adversely affected by this in any way.