The quintessentially British supplication “God save the Queen” never ceases to irritate me. I can think of no reason why intelligent and modern students at Oxford — once the seat of logical positivism — laud some old woman whose only ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
A well written piece (and good to see another philosophy major on these pages!) that reminds me of some of Bertrand Russell's polemical works. In all fairness to your opponents, though, you might consider presenting their arguments more sympathetically - something that Russell didn't do well in "Why I Am Not a Christian," for example. Cheers!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I would not ordinarily be provoked to respond to an article I read in The Prince, but the particular target of this ill-formed rant, and the astonishing lack of clarity in its execution, forces upon me a defence of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, by the Grace of God the Second of that name. Mr. Loh begins his polemic by asking why Oxonians should laud the Queen. I would point out that she is the Head of State for Her Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – and fifteen other independent countries – and as such has a share in the sovereignty over that body. Sovereignty of the United Kingdom - as it is presently constituted - rests in a highly evolved and palimpsest-like system of government called the Crown-in-Parliament. Contrary to popular American belief neither the Queen alone nor her advisers - such as the Prime Minister - possess sole right of rule. The U.K. is ruled by a “conversation.” All British Acts of Parliament begin with the characteristic invocation, “BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...” Therefore the Queen’s “claim to fame” is not “the superstitious beliefs of preindustrial society” but the sanction of the unwritten British Constitution. She sits at the heart of British government, is an integral part of British culture, and any attempt at removing her authority would do terrible damage to the constitutional structure of Parliament, surely necessitating its immediate and subsequent reconstitution on wholly new grounds. She has also, over many decades in office, shown herself to be a kind, affable, reassuring old woman, patroness of more than 600 charities, consistently more popular than her elected prime ministers, and a pillar of stability during the often-chaotic second half of the twentieth century. And she has an interest in peculiar hats which many, even on these shores, find endearing. Mr. Loh seems to think Elizabeth Windsor is in some way responsible for the illegality of gay marriage, though he never makes it clear if he is bemoaning the failure of the British Parliament or the American Congress to enact that law. Since Britain recently gave equal rights to gay unions in the U.K., one presumes his target is America, where numerous states have constitutional amendments banning such measures. In all events, a little clarity would have been appreciated. I would also have liked to see some definite relationship established between the Queen of England – who, by office, has no political views – and gay rights. Mr. Loh makes another slip when he denies his belief “in gods or queens.” At a stroke, he has laid his finger on the central question of “faith,” although he quickly lets this flicker of insight die out. To believe need not mean, “to think it is there.” Thinking God exists is quite different from believing in Him, although the latter usually follows upon the former. The Queen of England is obviously a flesh-and-blood person as real as Mr. Loh himself, yet he does not “believe” in her. That God cannot be shown so easily only illustrates that the word “belief” has different meanings, and that properly understood religion is not, as Mark Twain had it, “thinking what you know ain’t so.” The author is on slightly stronger ground when he argues that Christianity is opposed to gay rights. Ironically the American branch of the C. of E. has been lobbying quite heavily for gay marriages, so this argument is undercut by his current geographic position. Anyway, somehow Loh needs to get God out of the picture (the real monarch under attack in this scatter-shot column), so Bertrand Russell’s famous teapot makes its perfunctory appearance – only this Princetonian-in-England prefers unicorns. Both the unicorns and the teapots are different from a belief in God, let alone the Christian conception of Him, not least because no one has advanced the idea of a Necessary Teapot which supports the existence of all contingent beings. (Better question: can there be a Self-heating Teapot?) There are, furthermore, no ancient texts alleging that such a unicorn (or teapot) ever walked, taught and preached in first century Palestine, which would have to be examined with full scholarly rigor to determine their veracity, which would surely have some bearing on the matter. For a man with an interest in horses with horns, he seems to have missed the point. And we are again quite far from the Queen of England, whom Mr. Loh seems to have forgotten entirely. This article, in the reviewer’s opinion, displayed poor writing, bad arguments, a marked lack of philosophical rigor, an ignorance of the English Constitution – which has served so well for so many centuries – and a willingness, which the reviewer would call “callous,” to attack a harmless old woman who has served her nation well during more than half a century in office. Besides, she has funny hats. I would have thought a self-identified “queen” would appreciate a lady with a flair for fashion. From this American: God Save the Queen.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!