‘If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.
‘
Voltaire, Letters Concerning the English Nation (Lettres Philosophiques); 1734.
Boadicea's Chariot 
G’day Bleuebelle. And what would you conclude from this observation?
When Voltaire (in my opinion a far, far superior intellect than that tosser Rousseau) wrote this, the English still by and large had a sense of self-worth and a general respect for their own culture and traditions. This, unfortunately, seems to have been diminished after the 1960s before getting utterly destroyed by Blair. At the time, the English would still not have been able to avoid some of the despotism that comes from having a single orthodoxy. When there are two pronounced, even polarised, orthodoxies there is a potential for conflict to secure the dominance of one over the other. If there were 30, however, the English would simply muddle their way through finding a compromise which neither deeply offends nor greatly pleases anyone.
Which is England’s greatest asset and also its very worst!
The Irish? 😦
🙂
Sorry Donald, it’s rather late here, my grammar was poor (as it is in the middle of the day too!)
I was responding to Christopher’s last sentence and making a statement not asking a question! 😉
But your answer is a good one!
Cuprum: The Germans have a very different way of approaching things, though it
doesn’t seem to be any better. Germans would not easily be persuaded to allow things
to get as far out of control as the English, but Germans are also more likely to get into
unnecessary conflicts and cause more pain than is really needed than the English are as well.
No argument from me Christopher! I do wonder how a country gets a communal “state of mind” over the years, centuries in fact. Stereotypes are so often so very true!
I always think it is interesting how tolerant the English are in many respects, but they don’t think they are which is odd.
Why did Catholicism not take hold here unlike Ireland?
Cuprum: Generally, it’s a matter of necessity. After England was unified with a bit of Danish help,
the people had to find some way to make things work. It was a muddle, but after a few centuries something resembling an agreement was accepted. The Swiss agreed to have as little to do with each other and somehow it worked out. Spaniards can’t stand each other, but realise they’re stuck with each other and somehow accept that. Portugal is small enough and content not to be Spain. Germany wasn’t any more unified than Spain until WWI ended and unity was imposed from the top as the old system simply collapsed. Germans still can’t stand each other, but somehow have come to expect nothing more than a mutual dislike.
😀 we could go on through all of Europe! Moves us onto the concept of the EU again…… I have never heard a rational argument as to why all these different cultures should unite except for trade reasons.
As an aside, I didn’t study history after age 14 at school, much to my regret now of course. As I get older I keep delving into European history and I am amazed at every corner. I am watching a OTT series about the Borgia family at the moment, so naturally I wiki’d them and got lost in all the links as one does. I had no idea what the Holy Roman Empire was until yesterday! I thought it was in Italy, not central Europe and mainly Germany! Or even the history of the country now known as Italy! Gaps in knowledge eh! How embarrassing!
But the point is – how do we ever get on even now?! Even without bloody religion(s) getting in the way! (to link it back to the start of the blog!)
Cuprum: there is no rational reason why these cultures should united. Nor is it possible that they ever will.
If Belgium can barely keep it together, what makes anyone thing that the entire bloody continent can be kept together?
I’ve long been intrigued by history and study it now at uni. My focus, though, is primarily on East Asia.
It can be terribly interesting, but it can also often be an outright bore which stretches tedium to new limits. Still, it’s one of the great disciplines and does require a great deal of ability to think.
European history rarely excites me, though the Portuguese are an exception and the French have had their moments. English history, however, is something which strikes me to my core.
Perhaps the reason why we get on is that we have no reason not to. When we do have a reason not to get on with each other any more, we don’t and face a great number of problems.
Oh Gawd! Boadicea is aghast! Read a little more, Cuprum. 😀
The British are Catholics, they just like to protest a lot, that;s why we in the faith call them protestants 🙂
Christopher, you may be right in saying that England’s view of itself was stronger in those days, and so could bear the brunt of whatever creeds and ideologies came its way. I do not defend Voltaire’s position from a liberal vantage point, but point out, merely that purality is in itself a form of self regulation where religion and ideology are concerned. And no man is an island, ‘though his country may be.
John Donne was around a good while before Voltaire.
Which surely means that Donne’s didactic tract therefore adds greater historical and philosophical weight – as if needed – to the swift humanism of Voltaire Almighty…
I’ve read this thread several times. I recognise it is in English, but I haven’t a scooby what you’re all on about.
Sob!
OZ
Oz, likewise, if we could recommend comments I’d definitely do yours 🙂
Bluebelle: that wasn’t what I intended to say. One of England’s greatest strengths throughout its history was the ability to find some sort of compromise which more often than not helped it to avoid the conflicts which others put themselves through. Even during its high days of colonialism, the British Empire was far more benign than any other for that very reason. Rather than trying to force everyone to conform to their norms, the British generally let things go on as they always did so long as they weren’t especially heinous.
Christopher: point taken… I am not sure, even, if the post itself even says what I meant to say either.. But thanks one and all for your comments.
At the time Voltaire was writing, there was of course only one religion in Britain – Christianity. There were lots of subdivisions, obviously, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Church of England, Methodists, etc, but they were all Christian. Perhaps it’s just a bad translation of the original text.
‘S’il n’y avait en Angleterre qu’une religion, le despotisme serait à craindre ; s’il y en avait deux, elles se couperaient la gorge ; mais il y en a trente, et elles vivent en paix et heureuses.»
So old Voltaire didn’t get the “mot juste” there. There is the word “subdivision”. Those were the days when there were no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Natural Law Party. Still, he got the bloodshed right between Catholic and Protestant.
Sheona, people in England had killed and had been killed over trivial differences in how Christianity should be practised. The host – to raise, or not to raise? The statues, the ornate altar – to smash or not to smash? And the word of God – English, or Latin? With respect, it is a tad naive to brand all sects in England, at the time of Voltaire, as one and the same…
I did not brand all sects as “one and the same”. But as you mention, they all had Christianity, the religion, in common. Voltaire seemed to think they lived in peace and harmony. You obviously don’t. I am just quibbling about Voltaire’s choice of the word “religion” which is very broad. Christianity is a religion, however it subdivides itself.
I don’t know whether Voltaire’s assessment of the various branches of Christianity is factually accurate or not; I am referring to previous eras, such as that of the English civil war when one’s particular brand of Christianity – whether puritan or Armenian – could prove a death sentence in certain circumstances. But it seems to me that the lexical branding and rebranding of religious ideologies is neither here nor there – the real question is whether there is a place for such pluralism today.
Let’s not forget that state faith of England was, and still is Anglicanism, or Church of England, or whatever the Prots want to call it. That one faith did lead to a degree of despotism as we poor, persecuted Catholics can attest. The other faiths or sects were tolerated as long as they did not confront or seriously undermine the state faith. I belong to the school that it is better for the entire nation, or certainly the vast majority share the same faith – or lack of faith, if you insist. It presents a united front and enables the nation to move forward together. Though historically an RC, I think England benefited as a result of their persecution and I think that England is suffering by allowing the virulent forms of Islam and to a lesser extent Judaism to flourish. The nation is being divided. I think if Voltaire were alive today, he would rethink his remarks.
Sipu
You do tend to forget that the “poor, persecuted Catholics’ had a long history over many many centuries of ‘despotism’ in the form of burnings before the C of E took over… Henry VIII, so called founder of C of E, continued to burn heretics while only chopping the heads of those Catholics who disagreed with him. I don’t recall any Catholic burnings – do you? The ‘persecution’ of Catholics was extremely short-lived.
I don’t think that there is any problem with a multi-faith society – it is the notion that a country can accommodate a variety of different cultures.
Christianity may be a middle-eastern religion in origin – but it adapted to fit into the ideology of the Roman Empire and has continued to change. It has become a European religion and is the basis for European culture.
Jews have lived in Europe for centuries, while Orthodox Judaism has aspects that many people don’t like, European Jewry has a tradition of fitting in with the laws and culture of the countries they live in… they are no problem.
Islam, however, promotes (loudly and aggressively!) its own rules and behaviour – most of which are derived from Eastern cultures. Many of those rules are incompatible with European culture.
I see no peace in Europe until those who want to practice their weird religions are told firmly that they may do as they please within the confines of their own homes – but the the laws of the host nation are supreme.
Yes indeed, Boadicea. One wonders what Voltaire would have thought if he had found streets in Paris full of praying Muslims. Well done to the French government for banning that.
Well done to the French government for a few things, Sheona!
“The ‘persecution’ of Catholics was extremely short-lived.” Ahem. It still continues though not quite as harshly as in days of yore, I grant you. The heir to the throne is still forbidden from marrying a Catholic. I won’t teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but more serious discrimination against Catholics went on well into the 19th century as I am sure you well know. This site provides a list of some of the laws that were enacted against Catholics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Emancipation. My own ancestors, of whom I am forbidden to speak, suffered at the hands of the Protestant State. Being burned is one thing I grant you, but having all your lands taken, being forbidden to practise law, medicine and other professions; being discriminated against at every level, both de jure and de facto, all serve to make life pretty difficult. My own parents certainly experienced it, as late as 1958, when we left England.
You say, ” the “poor, persecuted Catholics’ had a long history over many many centuries of ‘despotism’ in the form of burnings before the C of E took over”. But, you seem to forget that up until Henry VIII, everybody was Catholic, answerable to the Pope. It is meaningless to talk about a ‘them’ and ‘us’. It was all ‘us’ prior to Henry’s break with Rome. Let us not forget that the Pope gave Henry the title ‘Defender of the Faith’.The title was conferred by Pople Leo in 1521 in recognition of Henry’s book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments), which defended the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the Pope. Henry broke with Rome and changed the rules for purely self-serving ends and it became expedient, in every sense, for the rest of the nation to follow. Lets not pretend that it was anything other than that. Spirituality had sod all to do with anything.
That being said, my tongue was edging towards the side of my mouth when I wrote my comment #26. You do react very smartly whenever somebody seeks to defend the Catholic Faith. For someone who claims that all religion is hocus pocus, you do seem to have your favourites. You leap to the defence of the Jews who were persecuted from time to time in English history, but you appear unwilling to acknowledge that the Catholics who stuck to their faith which predated Henry and even Martin Luther were in any way hard done by, or if they were, they deserved it. While you may well have a point that corruption existed or even exists within the Catholic Church, your dearly beloved Anglican Church is hardly lilly-white. I would refer you to the Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope for an insight to the shennanigans that take place within that august organisation. The hierarchy of the Anglican Church was, and maybe still is, as every bit as corrupt as the Catholic Church. They just had a different modus operandi. Personally, I don’t have too much of a problem with it, but before you go about looking for motes in the eye of the Catholic Church, have a look for any beams that may be lying around in Canterbury.
The more serious point that I was making was that, whether it be Catholicism, Anglicanism, Islam, Judaism, or any other mainstream religion, I believe it is better for a nation as whole to practise one unified religion rather than a whole range of them. As I said, I believe that if Voltaire was around today, he would not say what he said 280 years ago.
Boadicea: the Jews were often isolated from society, but they did not shut themselves out.
Ladino, Yiddish, and Italkian are three of the more prominent Judaeo-European languages.
Much of the time their isolation was imposed on them, not something they chose to do. There is an
old joke that if you want to destroy the Jews, the only way to do it is with kindness. If they’re accepted
and treated well, Jews will naturally begin to intermarry and melt into greater society. Muslims don’t seem
willing to do this. Their isolation has been self-imposed. There also doesn’t seem to be as much desire to adopt their religious beliefs to Western norms, as both Christianity and Reform Judaism have done.
‘I think if Voltaire were alive today, he would rethink his remarks..’
Actually, you are right. I have not painted the full picture of Voltaire’s fire and venom; most of it was actually directed at the blind barbarity of extreme religious ideologies. The man basically spent most his life on the run – from the French court; from the police, from the Vatican – for his trenchant and uncompromising attacks on them. The original post herre is somewhat flawed for being one sided. It will take some time to come up with a proper post to redress the balance, but I might do that.
Bearsy #14 – I’m trying, I’m trying! I did drop History at 14 – there’s a lot of gaps to fill!
Interesting exchange charioteers, good reading, thank you bleuebelle.
Christopher – I agree – there’s no reason why we shouldn’t get on….but human nature tends to be protectionist of those nearest and dearest so Europe unified would never work!
Still sobbing!
OZ