British dictionary scraps Christian, rural references
Once again, I have no problem at all understanding why Rachel Lucas has an entire content category devoted to Britain’s “surrender” — in this case, to multiculturalism and progressive sensibilities.
Oxford University Press has removed words like “aisle”, “bishop”, “chapel”, “empire” and “monarch” from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like “blog”, “broadband” and “celebrity”. Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.
The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.
But academics and head teachers said that the changes to the 10,000 word Junior Dictionary could mean that children lose touch with Britain’s heritage.
“We have a certain Christian narrative which has given meaning to us over the last 2,000 years. To say it is all relative and replaceable is questionable,” said Professor Alan Smithers, the director of the centre for education and employment at Buckingham University. “The word selections are a very interesting reflection of the way childhood is going, moving away from our spiritual background and the natural world and towards the world that information technology creates for us.”
One wonders if words like “mosque” are still to be found in the Junior Dictionary?
Actually, this move on Oxford University Press’ part is rather interesting for its timing, given that it is almost exactly simultaneous with philosopher Marcello Pera’s assertion that it is “of fundamental importance” for all of Europe to openly admit its Christian nature and foundations.
(Note: Pera, an Italian senator, is an atheist.)
Philosopher and writer Marcello Pera says Europe must call itself Christian because it’s exactly what can bring the continent together.
Pera, an Italian senator, presented his latest book, “Perché Dobbiamo Dirci Cristiani” (Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians), in Rome on Thursday. More than 300 people were present at the event.
In the book’s introduction Pera writes: “My position is that of an atheist and a liberal who asks Christianity about the reason for hope.” Benedict XVI, in a letter to Pera, said that the book is “of fundamental importance at this hour in Europe and the world.”
…
Pera emphasized at the book launch that his new publication “is not polemics but critique,” and he claimed that “European identity does not have a precise connotation, it is a summation that is both multicultural and distinct.”
“It is the Christian root that can bring all of this together,” he added.
Pera said that recent events have suggested these conclusions: “Fundamentalism, 9/11, problems of integration, public ethical problems and bioethical problems.”
The senator said that we must ask ourselves “who we are, what do we believe in, what is my identity, our identity; if I do not ask these questions, I do not know how to defend myself from those who attack me and I do not even know what to teach.”
Pera spoke of a recent meeting with [Pope Benedict XVI]. He said that the Pope did not ask him if he believed in God but: “How do you, an atheist, a liberal, a western European, justify the principles and values that you consider basic to the point of being proud to write your charters? How are you prepared to justify and compare yourself with others?”
The Pontiff continued, according to Pera’s account, asking: “What is the terrain upon which I, a believer, and you, an atheist, can meet to safeguard these principles and these values without which you and I know our civilization would not exist?”
What a contrast to the soft surrender of the Brits, eh?
It’s the Pope’s last point, above, that is the salient one, and which illustrates just how absurd the Oxford University Press’ move really is. Europe may be moving in a generally secular direction these days, but it was born and forged in the fires of Christendom, and it is primarily because of that Christian heritage, and the unique theology of Christianity concerning the nature and fundamental freedom of the human person, that Europe emerged having the shape and character that it did and still does, more or less.
To whitewash that history, and that connection to a historic faith, is to strip away any connection to the foundation on which British society was built. That leaves it more vulnerable to…well, to a host of things, but most notably to whichever philosophy is most willing, and most able, to insert itself — with strength — into the picture, to fill the void left by the removal of that which was Christian.
No Comments Comments Feed
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The comments are closed.