[My View - 003] Should the POWER be with the Ruling Institutes or the Religious Institutes?

Brief Summary of Thomas Becket's Story

When Henry revamped the court system in England in the late 12th century, he appointed Thomas Becket as the new Archbishop of Canterbury in 1161. As their relationship grew over time, Henry II also appointed Becket as his Chancellor. However, later in 1162, Thomas Becket resigned from his position as Chancellor due to prioritizing the power of the church over his relationship with Henry. As the relations between the two deteriorated in 1164, Henry created a new set of laws called the Constitutions of Clarendon, increasing the power of the king's courts and decreasing the power of the Church Courts. Becket, who only considered his personal strength and influence on the Church, refused these laws. Disobeying the King's orders, resulted in Becket being put on trial. Becket feared for his safety and fled to France. Meanwhile in England, Henry II, was concerned about his succession. Although he had planned to crown Becket as the next king, he had already been greatly angered at him, so that would not be the best option. So Henry crowned his son, Henry III, as king, in a coronation performed by the Archbishop of York. This enraged Becket, as coronations were traditionally performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was still his role despite living in France. Soon after, Becket appealed to the Pope, who helped sort Henry's and Becket's differences out. So this led to Becket returning back to England. However, he still did not patch things up. He continued to have a grudge against Henry; for example, he excommunicated all of the bishops involved in Henry III's coronation. This enraged Henry II, and he spit out some wicked words ; 'WHO WILL RID ME OF THIS TURBULENT PRIEST?'. His knights perceived his anger and rode to Canterbury Cathedral, murdering Becket. However, three years after Becket died, in 1173, Alexander Pope III made him a saint, acknowledging his significance as an Archbishop. As an act of remorse, Henry II walked barefoot from London to Canterbury Cathedral, and allowed the monks to whip him. After all, this story of Henry II and Thomas Becket comes down to a struggle for power. Now let us picture the same story, but in 2026, considering the developments and changes over time in England.

Should the POWER be with the Ruling Institutes or the Religious Institutes?

When Henry revamped the court system in England in the late 12th century, he appointed Thomas Becket as the new Archbishop of Canterbury in 1161. As their relationship grew over time, Henry II also appointed Becket as his Chancellor. However, later in 1162, Thomas Becket resigned from his position as Chancellor due to prioritizing the power of the church over his relationship with Henry. As the relations between the two deteriorated in 1164, Henry created a new set of laws called the Constitutions of Clarendon, increasing the power of the king's courts and decreasing the power of the Church Courts. Becket, who only considered his personal strength and influence on the Church, refused these laws. Disobeying the King's orders, resulted in Becket being put on trial. Becket feared for his safety and fled to France. Meanwhile in England, Henry II, was concerned about his succession. Although he had planned to crown Becket as the next king, he had already been greatly angered at him, so that would not be the best option. So Henry crowned his son, Henry III, as king, in a coronation performed by the Archbishop of York. This

enraged Becket, as coronations were traditionally performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was still his role despite living in France. Soon after, Becket appealed to the Pope, who helped sort Henry's and Becket's differences out. So this led to Becket returning back to England. However, he still did not patch things up. He continued to have a grudge against Henry; for example, he excommunicated all of the bishops involved in Henry III's coronation. This enraged Henry II, and he spit out some wicked words ; 'WHO WILL RID ME OF THIS TURBULENT PRIEST?'. His knights perceived his anger and rode to Canterbury Cathedral, murdering Becket. However, three years after Becket died, in 1173, Alexander Pope III made him a saint, acknowledging his significance as an Archbishop. As an act of remorse, Henry II walked barefoot from London to Canterbury Cathedral, and allowed the monks to whip him. After all, this story of Henry II and Thomas Becket comes down to a struggle for power. Now let us picture the same story, but in 2026, considering the developments and changes over time in England.

Pushing us through the barriers that stop us from pursuing our dreams, power. Power can shape you and your mind. Power is the key that opens the chest of answers to all questions. But, today we will be discussing, ''Should power be with the ruling institutions or the religious institutions?''. This question is still being debated over in political society. While some people state that the ruling institutions shape our country, others state that religious institutes keep the traditions alive. Many factors contribute to the ruling institutions holding power. Firstly, the ruling institutions provide stability for our country. Controlling our country, the government is shaping every day, to what it is now. The ruling institutions focus on the stability of our country. Our government holds the responsibility to halt our country from faltering, ensuring England to have a bright future. The government also focuses on equality and human rights. The government or the ruling institutes holding utmost power would be beneficial for our country, focusing on the development of our country and improvising them every day. Secularity revolves around the concept of development and human rights. Now we shall move on to the religious institutes holding utmost power and what impact it lays on our country.

Religious institutions provide people with moral support. When we encounter hardships during life, faith in a divine being can soothe our souls, making us forget the unfortunate times, and spend some quality time with God, communicating with Him/Her. Worshippers often feel secure when around the divine force of God. Religious institutions don't only provide moral support, but also allow people to communicate with God and feel optimistic during hard times. Unlike religious institutions, religious institutions holding utmost power would be beneficial for the people, but not for the development of England. Now, let us move on to my personal opinion on this, regarding which institutions out of these two, should hold power.

I personally believe that the ruling institutions should hold utmost power. Although religious institutions are quite significant for our country. Even without religious, moral advice, many people are managing their problems. Ruling institutions holding utmost power is quite beneficial for our country too, providing sustainable development ideas, and the notion of providing stability for our country. This debate has been argued over since years, and no one has ever come to a conclusion yet. However I personally think that whichever institution people believe must hold utmost power, the two institutions must never merge. If they merge, politicians and people in the ruling institutions allow their faiths and beliefs to guide them through their political decisions, which contradicts with the purpose of Law and Politics (taking decisions based on facts and evidence, not on opinions and emotions which have a high chance to change in the future). With the ruling institutions holding utmost power, there is certainty that England will have a bright and sparkly future.

Jodha Kondapalli