Prime Minister of UK forced to hide beliefs

axer

Am I right in my understanding that the Prime Minister of the UK can be a member of any religion except the Catholic religion?

How come it has never been successfully challenged in the UK or in Europe considering how discriminatory it is?

In my opinion religion should always be kept as far away from politics as possible but I understand it is rare that they are kept far away however still having a ban on Catholics becoming Prime Ministers is clear discrimmination.

galwayrush

I thought that had only to do with the Royalty, but i could be wrong.

mikemac

The PM can be any religion, but it causes problems as he'll be making appointments for the Anglican Church.
He could have converted if he wanted to.

The Royal family cannot be Catholic as they are head of the Church

axer

After reading more into it, it seems that the PM can be any religion as there is no office of the PM thus it is not effected by the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act but technically the PM cannot hold the position of First Lord of the Treasury.

But does the fact that there are restrictions on the powers a catholic can hold not give power to the anti-catholic sectarionist bigots in the UK?

purple'n'gold

axer wrote: »

After reading more into it, it seems that the PM can be any religion as there is no office of the PM thus it is not effected by the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act but technically the PM cannot hold the position of First Lord of the Treasury.

But does the fact that there are restrictions on the powers a catholic can hold not give power to the anti-catholic sectarionist bigots in the UK?

The First Lord of the Treasury is the head of the commission exercising the ancient office of Lord High Treasurer in the United Kingdom, usually but not always the Prime Minister. Currently, it is held by Gordon Brown.

Fratton Fred

axer wrote: »

Am I right in my understanding that the Prime Minister of the UK can be a member of any religion except the Catholic religion?

How come it has never been successfully challenged in the UK or in Europe considering how discriminatory it is?

In my opinion religion should always be kept as far away from politics as possible but I understand it is rare that they are kept far away however still having a ban on Catholics becoming Prime Ministers is clear discrimmination.

I think you are being a bit senasationalist there. Tony Blair decided to convert to Catholicism, big deal. The only reason that he reportedly didn't do so before was because there may have been some old legislation hanging around which could have lead to a challenge of any decisions he made whilst in office. There is no constitutional reason why he could not have been the first Catholic PM.

The fact that his wife is a Catholic and he chose to have his children baptised as catholics is probably the most telling fact. Also the fact that no one gave a flying squirrels cod piece what religion him or his wife were/are is probably another significant factor.

Now he has been officially converted, the vatican has decided he can partake of communion, very noble of them.

flogen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you are being a bit senasationalist there. Tony Blair decided to convert to Catholicism, big deal. The only reason that he reportedly didn't do so before was because there may have been some old legislation hanging around which could have lead to a challenge of any decisions he made whilst in office. There is no constitutional reason why he could not have been the first Catholic PM.

What constitution are you referring to there?

The fact that his wife is a Catholic and he chose to have his children baptised as catholics is probably the most telling fact. Also the fact that no one gave a flying squirrels cod piece what religion him or his wife were/are is probably another significant factor.

Now he has been officially converted, the vatican has decided he can partake of communion, very noble of them.

I think he held off making the switch for his own political reasons - maybe he just wanted to avoid having to go through the whole process under the public gaze, having to answer smug questions from the Tories at PMQs, or maybe he thought it might upset a few voters.

moe_sizlak

ian duncan smith who was leader of the conservatives for a few yrs during tony blairs tenure as prime minister was a catholic so i dont think being a catholic prevents you from becoming prime minister

many say blair didnt become a catholic while prime minister because there is still technicacally legislation that could object to such a move

as regards the so called anti catholic bigots in the uk , there isnt really much of that left in britain , especially in england , there is in scotland but that is culturally exclusive to the scotts like almost nowhere else

i didnt include nothern ireland because unionists are scotts for all intensive purposes

Fratton Fred

flogen wrote: »

What constitution are you referring to there?

Britain does have a constitution, but it is very different from the irish one, or the US etc. Most of it is unwritten and it takes various forms. Take a look at Wikipedia.

flogen wrote: »

I think he held off making the switch for his own political reasons - maybe he just wanted to avoid having to go through the whole process under the public gaze, having to answer smug questions from the Tories at PMQs, or maybe he thought it might upset a few voters.

That is the most likely answer.

Breezer

flogen wrote: »

I think he held off making the switch for his own political reasons - maybe he just wanted to avoid having to go through the whole process under the public gaze, having to answer smug questions from the Tories at PMQs, or maybe he thought it might upset a few voters.

His involvement in the Northern Irish peace process may also have been a factor. People could have taken it the wrong way.

OPENROAD

Bit of a misleading title imo, hardly forced to hide his beliefs,known for years about his catholic beliefs.

OPENROAD

I think it also should be noted that while PM he was in favour of stem-cell research, was in support of civil partnerships for gay couples and voted in favour of abortion, all issues on which the Catholic church hold strong positions on.

ejmaztec

OPENROAD wrote: »

I think it also should be noted that while PM he was in favour of stem-cell research, was in support of civil partnerships for gay couples and voted in favour of abortion, all issues on which the Catholic church hold strong positions on.

Probably why he didn't sign up until he got those out of the way.

murphaph

Christ on a bike! The Roman Catholic Church <praise be to god> virtually governed this country for decades after 'independence'. They ruled it with an iron fist and many people suffered horrendously at their hands. Maybe it's a 'good thing' that they are kept away from government as much as possible!

Dave!

OPENROAD wrote: »

I think it also should be noted that while PM he was in favour of stem-cell research, was in support of civil partnerships for gay couples and voted in favour of abortion, all issues on which the Catholic church hold strong positions on.

Bloody hell! I'll never understand what attracted him to the RC Church, if he supported all of those things... I would assume he has used contraception in the past, also.

Guy:Incognito

DaveMcG wrote: »

I would assume he has used contraception in the past, also.

Maybe he didnt and thats why he's pro abortion.

johnnyskeleton

flogen wrote: »

What constitution are you referring to there?

Magna Carta etc.

I'd love to see the Queen take an employment discrimination case on the basis that she is not allowed to be catholic.

Fratton Fred

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Magna Carta etc.

I'd love to see the Queen take an employment discrimination case on the basis that she is not allowed to be catholic.

The Queen is head of the Church of England, so it does kind of make sense she is an Anglican.

mcgarnicle

I think we Irish should have a read of our own dogmatic and Catholic inspired constitution before having a go at Britain. You are worried about the fact that a Catholic may have problems becoming PM in the UK how about the fact that a non-Christian cannot , with a clear conscience, become a judge in Ireland?

Time Magazine

mcgarnicle wrote: »

how about the fact that a non-Christian cannot , with a clear consciounce, become a judge in Ireland?

Sure they wouldn't be appointed anyway

Gurgle

A Catholic, by definition, owes a higher allegience to the pope than to any nation, state or people. One of the fundamental reasons that the catholic church has been such a failure as a religion but so successful in politics over the last several hundred years.

Catholics should be banned from holding any public office, as there will always be a conflict of interests.

jawlie

mcgarnicle wrote: »

I think we Irish should have a read of our own dogmatic and Catholic inspired constitution before having a go at Britain. You are worried about the fact that a Catholic may have problems becoming PM in the UK how about the fact that a non-Christian cannot , with a clear conscience, become a judge in Ireland?

It’s much more fun to bash the brits than consider our own failings. In any case, any failings we have can also be attributed to the brits as a hang over of there legacy. Right?

The RCC’s role in the Irish state can be judged to have been a disgrace in the 20th century, and that the state allowed the church to interfere to such a level is also a cause for regret. However, the healthiest thing to have happened in recent times is the loss of influence of the RCC in the homes ( and bedrooms) of Ireland, and on the State.

It may seem like a quaint joke now that Archbishop John Charles McQuaid forbade Roman Catholics from attending Trinity College in Dublin because it was a protestant institution, but it demonstrates well the power and the corruption of the time.

Gurgle wrote: »

A Catholic, by definition, owes a higher allegience to the pope than to any nation, state or people. One of the fundamental reasons that the catholic church has been such a failure as a religion but so successful in politics over the last several hundred years.

Catholics should be banned from holding any public office, as there will always be a conflict of interests.

If we are honest, we all have allegiances to bodies other than the nation state. Roman Catholics in many countries hold public offices, but the state apparatus helps prevent them, and those with other allegiances, from corrupting their offices or jobs.

mcgarnicle

jawlie wrote: »

It’s much more fun to bash the brits than consider our own failings. In any case, any failings we have can also be attributed to the brits as a hang over of there legacy. Right?

The RCC’s role in the Irish state can be judged to have been a disgrace in the 20th century, and that the state allowed the church to interfere to such a level is also a cause for regret. However, the healthiest thing to have happened in recent times is the loss of influence of the RCC in the homes ( and bedrooms) of Ireland, and on the State.

It may seem like a quaint joke now that Archbishop John Charles McQuaid forbade Roman Catholics from attending Trinity College in Dublin because it was a protestant institution, but it demonstrates well the power and the corruption of the time.

If we are honest, we all have allegiances to bodies other than the nation state. Roman Catholics in many countries hold public offices, but the state apparatus helps prevent them, and those with other allegiances, from corrupting their offices or jobs.

I agree that it is a great thing how much influence the Catholic Church has lost in Ireland. For many observers around the world Ireland has become a bit of a sociological puzzle, how a country that was so gripped by Catholic dogma only 20 or so years ago can utterly abandon it so quickly is a real question sociologists have considered.

One of the possible explanations is that, unlike other countries, the nationalist movement in Ireland is not centred on being a Catholic, I know this sounds absurd considering the North. But atheistic Marxism had a far stronger role in shaping Irish Republicanism (in what is now the Republic) than had the Catholic Church. This means that Irish people can abandon their religious practices without a fear of being dubbed a traitor or a communist. Worth noting that one of the reasons religion has become so virulent (and I would contend dangerous) in the US has been the attempt to tie Christianity into part of what being an American meant. This began of course in the 1950s and had nothing to do with the original intentions of the founding fathers, of whom while many were of course Christian, were completely secular in their intentions and explicitly clear on keeping a seperation of church and state. The ironic result of both of these nations' changes over the past few decades is that America, while overtly Christian in the extreme has perhaps the most secular constitution in the world, born as it was from Enlightenment ideals while Ireland, now a typically non-religious modern European state, has a constitution rife with Catholicism and rules regarding judges etc that are down right discriminatory. It is high time for a referendum to utterly reform this anachronism.

purple'n'gold

mcgarnicle wrote: »

I think we Irish should have a read of our own dogmatic and Catholic inspired constitution before having a go at Britain. You are worried about the fact that a Catholic may have problems becoming PM in the UK how about the fact that a non-Christian cannot , with a clear conscience, become a judge in Ireland?

We have had non Christian judges in Ireland; Jewish judges have served with distinction on the bench. Hubert Wine is one that comes to mind.

mcgarnicle

purplengold wrote: »

We have had non Christian judges in Ireland; Jewish judges have served with distinction on the bench. Hubert Wine is one that comes to mind.

Can an atheist be a judge in Ireland? I can't remember the required oath of the top off my head so I may have been a little too presumptuous to say non-Christian. I am 100 per cent sure though that a belief in God is required.

Of course any person in that position would most likely simply lie and take that oath regardless. It is still a ridiculous thing to have in place.

mcgarnicle

Actually I just found it, Article 34.5 of the Irish Constitution:

" In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will toward any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me".

"Any judge who declines or neglects to make such decloration as oforesaid shall be deemed to have vacated his office"

In the context of the Irish constitution the god mentioned here is without doubt the Christian God and in particular the Christian God as represented by the Catholic Church. Of course there is nothing to stop a Jew parroting the words and convincing himself that the God he is addressing is his own nor is there anything stopping an atheist mouthing the words while either totally ignoring them or convincing himself that he is referring to the laws of physics etc.

The point is, regardless of whether it causes a particular person concern to make a hypocrite of himself the choice should never have to be made in the first place.

purple'n'gold

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Actually I just found it, Article 34.5 of the Irish Constitution:

" In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will toward any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me".

"Any judge who declines or neglects to make such decloration as oforesaid shall be deemed to have vacated his office"

In the context of the Irish constitution the god mentioned here is without doubt the Christian God and in particular the Christian God as represented by the Catholic Church. Of course there is nothing to stop a Jew parroting the words and convincing himself that the God he is addressing is his own nor is there anything stopping an atheist mouthing the words while either totally ignoring them or convincing himself that he is referring to the laws of physics etc.

The point is, regardless of whether it causes a particular person concern to make a hypocrite of himself the choice should never have to be made in the first place.

I cannot understand how you can make out that the god mentioned here is without doubt the Christian god. To Christians, Jews and Muslims there is only one god. It doesn’t say anything here about this being a specific Christian god.

mcgarnicle

purplengold wrote: »

I cannot understand how you can make out that the god mentioned here is without doubt the Christian god. To Christians, Jews and Muslims there is only one god. It doesn’t say anything here about this being a specific Christian god.

Because it is taken from the Irish Constitution, which begins:

"In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions of both man and States must be referred, We, the people of Eire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ"

I think that is quite specific.

jawlie

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Of course there is nothing to stop a Jew parroting the words and convincing himself that the God he is addressing is his own nor is there anything stopping an atheist mouthing the words while either totally ignoring them or convincing himself that he is referring to the laws of physics etc.

.

I thought he Jewish God and the Christian God was the same God? But your point is well taken and what will happen when we have our first hindu Judge or Muslim one?

purple'n'gold

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Because it is taken from the Irish Constitution, which begins:

"In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions of both man and States must be referred, We, the people of Eire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ"

I think that is quite specific.

I have checked that out, it is indeed the preamble to the constitution. I have to put my hands up, that is indeed the Christian god. There is only one Jesus Christ.