Just in the nick of time we see some real leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury. No no, he isn’t doing anything crazy to save the Anglican communion like embracing orthodoxy or anything. Canterbury leads us in a different direction, off a cliff.
Rowan Williams has come out strongly in favor of the doctrine of higher taxes. Further, he gives us the source of this divinely inspired revelation, Big Brother 11.
[Telegraph]Dr Rowan Williams said that taxation should not be seen as a way of stifling business or redistributing wealth but helping to make the world a better place in which to live.
He called for new levies to be introduced on financial transactions and carbon emissions, and an end to the idea that unlimited economic growth is desirable.
The archbishop also claimed reality television gives us “alarming glimpses” of what the world would look like were everyone to be governed by self-interest.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, who looks remarkably like Sybok from the one of the worst movies of all time Star Trek V, has lost his marbles. As it happens, Sybok’s tale is instructive. Sybok, half brother of Spock, has rejected logic and embraced emotions as his guide. This allows him to be fooled by a false God that beckons him to a far-off Planet. Let’s call that planet, for the sake of argument, the Socialist Utopian planet.
Sybok cannot get to this utopian planet on his own so, knowing the rightness of his cause, he decides he can force others to do his bidding. In order to accomplish this, he fools people into going along and believing lies by appealing to their emotions. “Come with me”, he says “I will take you to a better place where you will be happy and never get sick.” It’s not true of course, but it convinces enough people who want it to be true to go along for the ride. Let’s call this, for lack of a better word, liberalism.
Of course, this is not enough. In order to get to this supposed utopia, he needs to take a few things from those who aren’t completely on board with the program. He needs the Enterprise. So Sybok and his emotional friends steal it at the point of a gun. Let’s call this taxation.
So after they have fooled all the people that they could and forced the rest at gunpoint to go along with their foolish plans, they finally arrive at this supposed utopia. Alas they discover that all that was promised them doesn’t materialize. Instead, they are greeted by their false god who, surprise, just wants more. It turns out that the false god wanted the starship (acquired through taxation) for his own nefarious purposes and was never really interested in helping the people in the first place. How disappointing.
Now that I think about, Star Trek V might one of the best political allegories since Animal Farm.
One of the more memorable quotes from this otherwise forgettable movie comes from our hero, James T. Kirk, a rugged individualist if there ever was one. Never fooled by the appeal to his emotions, he questions this false God and asks, “What does God need with a starship?” Ignored, he asks again. Let’s call this a town-hall meeting.
I would ask Rowan Williams a similar question. “What does God need with our tax dollars?” Either wake up from your socialist delusion or go back to watching Big Brother. Either way, leave our starship alone.
Phasers are not on stun.
November 19, 2009 at 4:46 am
And how is this any different than the "10 Commandments of driving" released by the Vatican a couple years ago? Or is it a blunder equal to Benedict's anti-Islamic quote a few years back? And doesn't Benedict look like the Emperor?
Sorry-I actually like Williams. Sadly, Rowan couldn't enforce orthodoxy now if he wanted to. And if he did, the American Episcopal bishops would be intolerable. But to Williams credit, he is a historical theologian of equal or greater caliber to Benedict.
November 19, 2009 at 6:03 am
Oh, Terry… You had me going, piling one absurdity atop another.
I even thought you were serious, until I read that last sentence.
Thanks for the chuckles.
November 19, 2009 at 6:07 am
Terry,
You dream.
November 19, 2009 at 6:33 am
Terry – in the spirit of my PSAT's; Rowan is to Benedict like kite is to eagle. Rowan (aka the "Grand Druid" as he is called in the UK) has no taste for truth, orthodoxy or higher thinking. He is a pseudo-intellectual who is merely gliding along the tide of popular opinion and modernist trends. Was it controversial that he should praise Shari'a law in his country, calling it "inevitable" that it should be implemented? Hardly. Was it scholarly? Nope. Was it appropriate for a Christian leader in a Christian country to say? Not in a million years. But was it expected? Absolutely. Wouldn't have expected anything less from him.
November 19, 2009 at 11:39 am
If God doesn't need money, what's all this stuff about tithing doing in the Bible?
Why do churches regularly pass around the collection plate?
November 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool…
November 19, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I regularly enjoy your witty comments via Twitter, though I less often read your blog posts. But after reading this one, I had to stop here to say that this one had me laughing out loud. Thank you!
November 19, 2009 at 2:21 pm
This.. is the best post I've ever seen anywhere on the internet, ever.
-Chris M.
November 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Craig, I don't think that the Vatican can put a lien on your house, or put you in jail, or any other thing that the govt can do, if you do not contribute to the collection plate.
What I give to the Church, I give voluntarily. I don't *give* anything to the IRS, it is taken.
Really? There is no difference?
November 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm
So what do you call the part where Uhura does her sultry fan dance? Besides contrived, that is.
November 19, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Susan P.,
According to Mr. Archbold, God doesn't need money, so why do you give Him any money at all?
November 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Craig – we don't give the money to God because He needs it, but because the Church serves His people with it. It keeps the worship building open and in good repair, subsidizes the school and catechism programs, and provides funds for many charitable outreaches such as food, shelter, and ministry. At the very least, it helps pay the priest.
November 19, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Star Trek V, "I need my pain." That's why we watch this movie. It's funny except, you made me remember this movie and that is a grave offense.
November 19, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Of course, nightfly, you give money to your church to help make it a better place and help those in need.
That is why the Archbishop is saying people should look at tax dollars in a similar light.
November 19, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Craig, the distinction is between voluntary and involuntary giving. It's only thing to call for people to increase their charitable giving to "make the world a better place in which to live." It's another thing to call for the government to increase taxes to achieve the same goal.
November 19, 2009 at 8:32 pm
sorry "It's one thing…" not "It's only thing…"
November 19, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Craig, very much like Rowan, really don't deserve to be taken seriously.
November 20, 2009 at 5:49 am
There is a difference between the academic discipline of historical theology, and actual theology. I've always found Williams actual theology somewhat shallow, but his historical theology is solid-his Augustine work, and book on Arius being good example of that.
But as a bishop he's quite awful.
That being said, I found the quality of reply to my post to be of the highest quality. How delightfully pithy and intelligent the few responses to me have been! Early Riser apparently found more in my response than I had written-a keen eye. And Anonymous commented on my response while I was sleeping-prophetic. And It fills me with joy to show Clinton this:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703503.htm
and this:
http://www.unsoughtinput.com/index.php/2006/12/27/pope-benedict-or-emperor-palpatine/.
I agree, both are absurd.
November 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Terry:
OK, I'll bite.
1) About the 10 commandments for driving. Amusing, yes. Absurd, no. Have you never heard of road rage? It would be absurd if the Vatican were trying to tell everyone that all driving must cease immediately due to the possibility of drivers being led to sin. But the post was a common sense reflection on dealing with a common occasion of sin. Some would say the 10 commandment format was intentionally humorous.
2) The Pope vs Star Wars character link. The supposed connections were all Catholic-bashing nonsense. Nothing intellectual or thought provoking about mentioning Hilter youth (yawn, again!).
3)Rowan's comments were in support of taxation. CMR's comment humorously analysed them in the context of a Star Wars movie. The difference between Rowan's comments and the 10 commandments are that the message of the driving document are common sense points about driving with care and do not involve giving additional powers to the government. Rowan's points involve the not-so-common sense advise to pay taxes quietly without using one's intelligence to decide whether or not these taxes are doing what they are supposed to. So based on Rowan's word, we are not to question whether higher taxes hurt businesses? Because he's knowledgeable in business and theology??
4) Your posts do not provide any links to support your contention that Rowan is an accomplished theologian, a point I will accept as a courtesy. Nonetheless, I would be very surprised to find his books accepted as insightful by Catholic theologians. My point is only that Catholic theology has a different take on the proper role of government and that even I can see Rowan is not in the Catholic ballpark.
The difference is the Vatican was making a humorous but common sense point about a serious topic and Rowan made a silly socialist point about a serious topic.
November 21, 2009 at 3:28 am
1) I can imagine that the first thing that people with road rage will think about, when they get angry, will be how amusing this article was. Its a brilliant strategy.
2) The Archbishop vs. Star Trek comparison may be illuminative for a certain sort of person, but ultimately it falls into the same category as the Pope vs. Star Wars comparison, namely, ridiculous name-calling.
3) I'll presume that you've only read the quoted part above, and not the whole speech. http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/11/rowan-williams-crunchy-con.html
That gives a bit more of the speech, which sounds surprisingly "common sense" to me, so much so that it reminds me of "Charity in Truth". I suppose if I were to take a quote that I don't agree with out of context, I too could misconstrue it as well. For instance, remember that "world political authority" the Pope called for this summer? I can't imagine that wouldn't require higher taxes as well.
4) Historical theologian. There is actually a difference between modern theological inquiry (those folks that we call "theologians"), and the historical study of theological development. For instance, if we were to talk about William's recent comments on "female bishops" being a second order concern in Catholic/Anglican dialogue, we both could agree that its silly, and that Rowan as modern theologian is silly as well.
But his academic work seems to be in the Church Fathers, which is actually very good. Since most laymen don't read academic articles and books on theology, it seems pointless to provide a link, but if you want to, you can read Williams on Augustine: http://books.google.com/books?id=N0pP9rYOcdoC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=rowan+williams,+augustine&source=bl&ots=KFxyfGO4fg&sig=FIHPhlQCq6xHyMTDj1ihAE2Vv_o&hl=en&ei=t1gHS433FYu_lAeBlpGFBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=rowan%20williams%2C%20augustine&f=false
Or perhaps Williams authoritative work on Arius:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5QoRowuRAWMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=arius#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Thanks for biting.