Shouldn't the head of the Church stay neural!?

Posted 8 Nov 2010 by Walaa Idris

Is it appropriate for the head of the Church of England, Dr Rowan Williams to comment on a government proposal before it has been laid out? One also wonders if that intervention was politically motivated!

Her Majesty the Queen never comments on political matters and the public does not like it when members of her family talk politics either. Shouldn’t then Dr. Williams fall under a similar category – learned people who are politically neutral?

1 comment(s)

NickOLarse

NickOLarse
9 Nov, 12:31

No-one is truly ‘neutral’ in a political sense. Every person has political views at some level, whether they are aware of it or not.

The issue here though is whether it is wrong for a person to use their position of influence to air their views. In my opinion it is better to allow views from all sides to be aired, and allow the audience to decide the merits of the arguments, rather than to censor particular individuals. I would extend that principle to the Royals – let’s hear what they have to say! I can decide if I agree or not, and so can others.

A deeper issue is perhaps that the voice of the ‘ordinary’ person is not heard enough, and opinion is shaped too much by politicians, media moguls, religious leaders and, increasingly, celebrities. One of the advantages of blogging is that it allows wider participation in debate, at least to those with a pc and internet connection, and that is to be welcomed.

The only case for limiting freedom of speech is, to my mind, where individuals or organisations (the B.N.P. for example) aim to limit the freedom of expression of others, destroy the democratic process and stir up hatred.

Commenting is closed for this article.