The British Empire Thread

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

sorry the figure quoted should have been 5000 to 5-- all this is on the irish web site www.wsm.ie it also talks about the influence of the church in goverment

I cant get onto the website but there is no doubt the Church influences goverments all over the world. Ireland is not unique.

But your generalisation that the Catholic Church is the sole reason why we dont have unrestricted abortion in Ireland is something I take exception to.

Of course there are plenty of people who are influenced by the Church no doubt whatsoever, but show me a society that does not have a significant proportion of its people 'guided/influenced' by the Church/religious doctrine?

getz

partyguinness wrote: »

I cant get onto the website but there is no doubt the Church influences goverments all over the world. Ireland is not unique.

But your generalisation that the Catholic Church is the sole reason why we dont have unrestricted abortion in Ireland is something I take exception to.

Of course there are plenty of people who are influenced by the Church no doubt whatsoever, but show me a society that does not have a significant proportion of its people 'guided/influenced' by the Church/religious doctrine?

i do under stand what you meen --you are irish and most probley a catholic your country was very strong on religion in fact it was said every irish family has a priest, that takes a lot of getting over --i am a english catholic[dont practise] and i went for a time to a catholic school in the republic but as i lived most of my life in the uk without any pressure from the church i think differently in many ways -i love ireland and the irish so much i will be on holiday in wicklow for the full month of feb, people dont understand the influence religion on society not all of it good but thats another thread

partyguinness

No I am not Catholic...I am an atheist. I personally resent the presence/influence of religion in the running of a country or government. I believe that religion should have no place in public administration/government.

That is why I got onto this thread because of the original posts about Cherrie Blair and UK having a Catholic PM. Religion is personal and should be kept that way.

We do not appreciate being lectured to about the malign influence of the Church in Ireland (which nobody is denying) when your own house is not exactly in order..please do not take that personally..case of 'pot-kettle-black'

But yes the Catholic Church does have alot of influence In Ireland but certainly not as absolute as you might think. We are not all sheep blindly following church doctrine which was certainly the impression you seem to have..:)

MarchDub

A discussion looks like it might be opening up on the issue of the ban on Catholicism in succession rights and the British Monarchy...

Interestingly, the fact that the ban feeds sectarianism is part of the discussion here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7841775.stm

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

A discussion looks like it might be opening up on the issue of the ban on Catholicism in succession rights and the British Monarchy...

Interestingly, the fact that the ban feeds sectarianism is part of the discussion here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7841775.stm

Also interesting that the it appears whilst the majority of catholics want a change they don't see it as a "Burning Issue", even the head of the catholic church in England considers it "While it is "strange" that it applies only to Catholics not any other faith, that is more indicative of Britain's history than any kind of discrimination, the spokesman added".

If you have a burning issue with it, move to England, change your nationality, get elected to parliament and you then have the right to propose a bill to change it. you may find a dozen or so people that support you, but a lot more who think that at this time it is a complete waste of tax payers money.

Hookey

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Also interesting that the it appears whilst the majority of catholics want a change they don't see it as a "Burning Issue", even the head of the catholic church in England considers it "While it is "strange" that it applies only to Catholics not any other faith, that is more indicative of Britain's history than any kind of discrimination, the spokesman added".

If you have a burning issue with it, move to England, change your nationality, get elected to parliament and you then have the right to propose a bill to change it. you may find a dozen or so people that support you, but a lot more who think that at this time it is a complete waste of tax payers money.

Reading that article, I was quite surprised that Spain and Holland have similar religion bars on their monarchs. And maybe that's the real answer, get rid of monarchies and the whole ridiculous situation goes away...

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Also interesting that the it appears whilst the majority of catholics want a change they don't see it as a "Burning Issue", even the head of the catholic church in England considers it "While it is "strange" that it applies only to Catholics not any other faith, that is more indicative of Britain's history than any kind of discrimination, the spokesman added".

Not at all surprised at this. As I said in an earlier post about a similar issue - English Catholics seem to me to be a diffident lot - I wouldn't look for any backbone there. What discrimination against Catholicism has ever been a "burning issue" for them?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you have a burning issue with it, move to England, change your nationality, get elected to parliament and you then have the right to propose a bill to change it. you may find a dozen or so people that support you, but a lot more who think that at this time it is a complete waste of tax payers money.

Nothing new in that! It took another Irishman, Daniel O'Connell to do just that and give all Catholics - including the silent, reluctant to rock the boat English Catholics - the right to sit in the Westminster Parliament. Left to the English Catholics to protest we would all still be waiting.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Not at all surprised at this. As I said in an earlier post about a similar issue - English Catholics seem to me to be a diffident lot - I wouldn't look for any backbone there. What discrimination against Catholicism has ever been a "burning issue" for them?

Nothing new in that! It took another Irishman, Daniel O'Connell to do just that and give all Catholics - including the silent, reluctant to rock the boat English Catholics - the right to sit in the Westminster Parliament. Left to the English Catholics to protest we would all still be waiting.

Well lets just thank god for Irish Catholics shall we. Their amazing backbone didn't stop years of child abuse by their beloved priests or dare I say it, years of institutional brainwashing in Catholic schools.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well lets just thank god for Irish Catholics shall we. Their amazing backbone didn't stop years of child abuse by their beloved priests or dare I say it, years of institutional brainwashing in Catholic schools.

Well, what else is new? When you can't win an intelligent argument - or dispute the facts before you - you resort to mud throwing and name calling.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Well, what else is new? When you can't win an intelligent argument - or dispute the facts before you - you resort to mud throwing and name calling.

You have just accused English Catholics of being spineless, wheb you resort to comments like that then I am afraid you cannot claim to be engaging in an intelligent arguement. Besides, you are trying to create an arguement out of nothing.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You have just accused English Catholics of being spineless, wheb you resort to comments like that then I am afraid you cannot claim to be engaging in an intelligent arguement. Besides, you are trying to create an arguement out of nothing.

Well, my comment wasn't meant to be a generalization in any way - I have always wondered at the fact that English Catholics seem to always shy away from anything political. They did nothing to better their own political exclusion concerning the ban on Catholics sitting in the Westminster Parliament and full political participation. So the succession issue is not something that they are going to address either. They are apparently not willing to come out of their closets...

I lived in England during some of the "troubles" and was always struck by the fact that English Catholics were unconcerned - and very reluctant to talk about - the blatant discrimination against Catholics in NI. I am not talking about the violence that ultimately ensued - while Irish Catholics in NI were putting together Civil Rights Marches they got no support from their co-religionists in England, a fact that always seemed remarkable to me.

I know the British press did not give accurate reports of what was actually happening in the 1960s - but I would have thought that Catholic grievances would have resonated with English Catholics as they did with many [non-Irish] US Catholics. But they did not -

Even Seamus Heaney was making comment on the dismal life of Catholics in NI in the early 1960s so the information was out there.

MarchDub

MarchDub wrote: »

while Irish Catholics in NI were putting together Civil Rights Marches they got no support from their co-religionists in England, a fact that always seemed remarkable to me.

Most English catholics have absolutely no connection with anyone in Northern Ireland, so therefore simply don't see any reason to feel any need to "support" them.

Same could be said for Protestants as well.

Even though the press often referred to the troubles being between Protestants and Catholics, many just saw two different groups of Irish fighting each other.

MarchDub

Deleted User wrote: »

Most English catholics have absolutely no connection with anyone in Northern Ireland, so therefore simply don't see any reason to feel any need to "support" them.

Same could be said for Protestants as well.

The situation for Catholics and Protestants in NI was not even Stephen - what hymn book are you reading from? I am referring to voting rights [one person one vote issue that Catholics were up against] , job discrimination, housing discrimination that was life for Catholics on a day to day level.

Deleted User wrote: »

Even though the press often referred to the troubles being between Protestants and Catholics, many just saw two different groups of Irish fighting each other.

Tell me about it- the British Press did a remarkably successful job at not reporting what was actually going on. The did make it look like an internal NI issue and no more. I have English friends who admit that it was only when they went to live for a short while in the US - and read other international press reports - that they realised what was really happening in NI - and British culpability in it all.

MarchDub

MarchDub wrote: »

The situation for Catholics and Protestants in NI was not even Stephen - what hymn book are you reading from? I am referring to voting rights [one person one vote issue that Catholics were up against] , job discrimination, housing discrimination that was life for Catholics on a day to day level.

As I said

Deleted User wrote: »

Most English catholics have absolutely no connection with anyone in Northern Ireland, so therefore simply don't see any reason to feel any need to "support" them.

Same could be said for Protestants as well.

As for the protestants; I was referring to the fact that English protestants had no reason to feed the need to support Irish protestants.

Many (at the time) simply didn't know why there was any fighting!

MarchDub

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said

As for the protestants; I was referring to the fact that English protestants had no reason to feed the need to support Irish protestants.

Many (at the time) simply didn't know why there was any fighting!

As I indicated supporting Protestants to discriminate and stand against Catholic voting rights, job rights, discrimination in housing etc would have been a bit rich...don't you think? Who in the world came out on that side??

MarchDub

MarchDub wrote: »

As I indicated supporting Protestants to discriminate and stand against Catholic voting rights, job rights, discrimination in housing etc would have been a bit rich...don't you think? Who in the world came out on that side??

20/20 hindsight is so clear! in the late 60's things were not so clear!

edit: anyway why do you expect English people to take sides!

MarchDub

Deleted User wrote: »

20/20 hindsight is so clear! in the late 60's things were not so clear!

Are you serious??? It sure as hell clear to those who suffered the discrimination - and anyone who are around at the time...you need to get some research under your belt.

With that grossly ill informed statement I can tell that you don't know what you are talking about - I am done with talking to you...

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Well, my comment wasn't meant to be a generalization in any way - I have always wondered at the fact that English Catholics seem to always shy away from anything political. They did nothing to better their own political exclusion concerning the ban on Catholics sitting in the Westminster Parliament and full political participation. So the succession issue is not something that they are going to address either. They are apparently not willing to come out of their closets...

I lived in England during some of the "troubles" and was always struck by the fact that English Catholics were unconcerned - and very reluctant to talk about - the blatant discrimination against Catholics in NI. I am not talking about the violence that ultimately ensued - while Irish Catholics in NI were putting together Civil Rights Marches they got no support from their co-religionists in England, a fact that always seemed remarkable to me.

I know the British press did not give accurate reports of what was actually happening in the 1960s - but I would have thought that Catholic grievances would have resonated with English Catholics as they did with many [non-Irish] US Catholics. But they did not -

Even Seamus Heaney was making comment on the dismal life of Catholics in NI in the early 1960s so the information was out there.

Obviously I can't speak for English catholics, but I would guess that what was happening in NI was so far removed from life in "Mainland" Britain it was hard to understand fully what was going on.

Most catholics in England, for example, would consider themselves English, but who happen to be catholic, rather than english catholics.

in my lifetime there has been no discrimination on a day to day basis between Catholics and Anglicans in England, so I guess it wouldn't occur to most people that it was happening elsewhere, it was usually seen as a nationalist/unionist issue rather than any form of bigotry.

ckristo2

Hi PHB,
this is Ckristo2. I'm new to the site. Can you tell me how I can start a brand new "Thread" instead of replying to other peoples' ? I'm bursting with ideas. Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in my lifetime there has been no discrimination on a day to day basis between Catholics and Anglicans in England

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0327/breaking8.htm

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Obviously I can't speak for English catholics, but I would guess that what was happening in NI was so far removed from life in "Mainland" Britain it was hard to understand fully what was going on.

Most catholics in England, for example, would consider themselves English, but who happen to be catholic, rather than english catholics.

in my lifetime there has been no discrimination on a day to day basis between Catholics and Anglicans in England, so I guess it wouldn't occur to most people that it was happening elsewhere, it was usually seen as a nationalist/unionist issue rather than any form of bigotry.

most people in the uk at the start of the problems in the north believed it was the ira and people living in the republic causing all the problems-even up to four years ago when i said to my wife we will go to the irish republic on holiday ,she said they dont like us over there isent it dangerous? -i can under stand it because when i went to dublin in 1957 people were walking around in ira uniforms.also in 1968 collections were being held in irish pubs and clubs in london to get out the british b......s out of ireland-i once even got a letter sent to me from boston usa in manchester[because i have a irish surname] to support the cause i can never remember in my life time i am now 68 of any problems between catholics and protestants in england -to be honest i only know the religion of one of my friends because he told that this week his neice is being confirmed;then again it dosent mean he is a catholic

getz

IIMII wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0327/breaking8.htm

it forgot to say that the uk by its self has not the right to change the consititution the uk can put the change of law forward to the commonwealth its up to commonwealth countrys if they want to exept it, this includes catholic common wealth countrys latest feeds say it will never be passed by the commonwealth-but it isent a supprise that a irish newspaper forgot to mention this-

Latchy

Wasn't just the british empire flexing it's muscle around the world . The Germans are also responsible for wiping out a tribe of Africans ( forget the tribe name ) by starvation .The Belgian Congo under Leapold has a notorious history of the mass muder of millions of Africans .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3516965.stm

IIMII

getz wrote: »

it forgot to say that the uk by its self has not the right to change the consititution the uk

So they UK can't change it's own constitution???? Jeez, if I were them I'd declare a republic. And why would the rest of the 'commonwealth' countires give a toss whether the bluebloods are catholic or protestant bluebloods?

IIMII

IIMII wrote: »

So they UK can't change it's own constitution???? Jeez, if I were them I'd declare a republic. And why would the rest of the 'commonwealth' countires give a toss whether the bluebloods are catholic or protestant bluebloods?

For the simple reason that many have the Queen as head of state!

getz

IIMII wrote: »

So they UK can't change it's own constitution???? Jeez, if I were them I'd declare a republic. And why would the rest of the 'commonwealth' countires give a toss whether the bluebloods are catholic or protestant bluebloods?

i would suggest before you make comments on a countrys constitution you first do your homework ;i personally[ as a baby having a christening in a catholic church] would like the royal family to marry who ever they want,but many protestant commonwealth countrys would not like someone like the pope pulling the strings .for inst look at the irish republic passed record,and even today the church of rome has a big say in your constitution.and is quick to interfere in many parts of the world.mybe this is why protestant countrys wont want change-i am sure the royal family would love to be able to chose who ever they would like to marry

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0327/breaking8.htm

Planning on becoming King were you?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Planning on becoming King were you?

That is a totally farcical response - and argument, if that is your intention.

The monarch in modern times is a high symbol of British society - I would argue the highest and most visible. In fact most of the arguments made in favour of keeping the monarchy run alone the lines of "the queen is an excellent representative of Britain, much respected, an unbroken link to history etc. etc. i.e a powerful and tangible symbol of Britain. For the very reason that the monarchy IS such an important symbol [it's not much else in today's world] it de facto represents what the Brits think to be "best" about Britain - and not allowing Catholics to even be in succession to the throne sends a message of a society not at all open minded and balanced and where Catholics are still considered to be second class citizens.

Mind you, even scanning the UK newspapers today speaks to the class ridden and hierarchical minded Brits. I see at least two newspapers taking down Bob Quick by a snobby reference to the fact that he is after all "the son of a taxi driver". Jeez, that explains a lot.

Now the queen, on the other hand, has a much better lineage and immensely qualified to head what - a petty kingdom in mourning for its lost past? The "no Catholics need apply" sign still on Buck palace tells us more about the contemporary state of Britain dealing with the loss of empire, than the reality of modern popery.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

That is a totally farcical response - and argument, if that is your intention.

The monarch in modern times is a high symbol of British society - I would argue the highest and most visible. In fact most of the arguments made in favour of keeping the monarchy run alone the lines of "the queen is an excellent representative of Britain, much respected, an unbroken link to history etc. etc. i.e a powerful and tangible symbol of Britain. For the very reason that the monarchy IS such an important symbol [it's not much else in today's world] it de facto represents what the Brits think to be "best" about Britain - and not allowing Catholics to even be in succession to the throne sends a message of a society not at all open minded and balanced and where Catholics are still considered to be second class citizens.

Mind you, even scanning the UK newspapers today speaks to the class ridden and hierarchical minded Brits. I see at least two newspapers taking down Bob Quick by a snobby reference to the fact that he is after all "the son of a taxi driver". Jeez, that explains a lot.

Now the queen, on the other hand, has a much better lineage and immensely qualified to head what - a petty kingdom in mourning for its lost past? The "no Catholics need apply" sign still on Buck palace tells us more about the contemporary state of Britain dealing with the loss of empire, than the reality of modern popery.

No, it tells you Britain is a nation that believes in worrying about things that need worrying about. I'll pass your concerns onto the Catholics of Britian, 99% of whom would probably say "Why the **** is an Irishman worried about that?".

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

... and where Catholics are still considered to be second class citizens.

What a load of crap. Most people in the UK don't even know each other's religion and could care less (Glasgow excepted). They're not that interested in the arcana of Royal protocol either, except for salacious stuff like whether Lady Di was checked to see if she was a virgin.