home
RSS
April 27th, 2011
01:39 PM ET

Religion will play leading role in royal wedding

With the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding over Friday's wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, and with William in line to become supreme head of the Church of England, the royal nuptials will be steeped in religion. Watch CNN's Max Foster's story above to learn more.

Also, read about the dead at William and Kate's wedding - the famous British buried at Westminister Abbey.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Anglican • Christianity • Europe • United Kingdom

soundoff (50 Responses)
  1. janie jo james

    Religion??? A little too late, don't you think? How long have they lived together and practiced being married? Not the same standards for William's wife, as for his mother? And they call these people the "Royals"?

    May 3, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  2. Mark from Middle River

    Are you really, "let us prey" and 308? Be serious, why the name change?

    So because some thought I was anti-Muslim I was making, according you a "stand." Now because I am not ready to blanket dislike all Muslims... I am now a wuss? What the Heck??? Are you serious.... I heard Bin Laden make comments about any Muslim that sides with the Americans are infidels and should be wiped out.

    Amazing how similar you folks out there on the extremes use almost the same language.

    Yes, a bunch of extremist who only dream of all out war with the entire Muslim world and then someone says maybe there is another way....

    "You did not bear the shame. You resisted. You bestowed an eternally vigilant symbol of change by sacrificing your impassioned lives for freedom, justice and honor."

    German Resistance Memorial.

    April 29, 2011 at 1:33 am |
    • BG

      @ Mark

      "Are you really, "let us prey" and 308? "
      Since you don't believe me, go find Peace2All and ask him.

      Mark, I'm sorry that you don't get it. Here's a quote from Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

      It's easy to acknowledge the horrors of war, there's tons of testimony to that effect. But understand this lesson from another historical icon about the source of war: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." – Hermann Göring

      From Phillip Bobbitt: "War is not a pathology that, with proper hygiene and treatment, can be wholly prevented. War is a natural condition of the State, which was organized in order to be an effective instrument of violence on behalf of society. Wars are like deaths, which, while they can be postponed, will come when they will come and cannot be finally avoided."

      No one -wants- war, Mark. You seem to think that I or anyone else that acknowledges or prepares for the potential of war is an "extremist," when the hard truth is that we are nothing more than realists. Let me try this another way... I once had an assignment to write a paper on a controversial subject of my choice delineating both sides of an argument. A "self-contained debate," as it were. I chose abortion as my subject. I defined my proponent and opponent respectively as advocates -for- abortion and -against- abortion. I listed all physical, social and emotional pros and cons of abortion. The paper was exhaustive.

      I got a C on it. The professor told me that I missed the entire point of the abortion controversy by defining the proponents of abortion as being "for" it. He said "nobody in their right mind pursues abortion as a goal, they only want the option available. You've labeled one side as being pro-abortion, when really they are simply pro-choice."

      You're doing the same thing here, Mark. No rational person -wants- war. Bobbitt argues that there will always be the potential for, and eventuality of, war because of man's inherent nature. He authored a 900 page treatise on how men and their governments should go about preventing war, fully acknowledging that war was an obvious potential.

      Or, one more way... The 'middle ground' that you're so fond of is – the obvious and given position. We'd all like to live there. The vast majority of us do live there. It's the proper place for reasonable people to be. It's the center of the bell curve, with the doves and the hawks all residing a couple of 'extremist' standard deviations out. My consternation with you is that you're stating the obvious, but not acknowledging the probable. You're left leaning, which isn't a bad thing if you're betting against war. I'm not, but that doesn't make me an "extremist," just a pessimist.

      Just like the thought process I employed in my abortion paper, I presume that if the -choice- is made available, it's a foregone conclusion that at some point it would actually be chosen.

      April 29, 2011 at 4:41 am |
1 2
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.