Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anti-catholism athe heart of the british royal family

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    super_furry wrote: »
    Why can't the Pope marry a protestant?
    I would have no prob with the pope marrying a protestant or anyone else either for that matter.


  • Options
    #33
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Thread fail - nobody cares. Take it to boards.co.uk and you might find people who care


  • Options
    #34
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Who gives a damn. Religion has caused us nothing but grief on this island. Why worry about what the rules are for a figure head of state for another country who in actuality has no real power in that country and definitely no real power in this country bar maybe persuading some of those in their own country to come here as tourists if the visit is a success.

    You could also say that hypocrites are those who say they are of one religious persuasion and carry out acts of violence in clear violation of the rules of their religion against another sect of the same type of religion.


  • Options
    #35
    Athlone_Bhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭Athlone_Bhoy


    You couldn't be the PM either if you were catholic. Look at Tony Blair converted to catholicism but only after he left.


  • Options
    #36
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    blinding wrote: »
    To move things on a bit should a modern inclusive democracy have an established church of the state.

    Is the church of England god a class above the other gods. I mean he(?) may have been in the past but what has he done lately.

    Also can the monarch or future monarch truly represent all of the people when they have a law that specifically pro-hibits them from marrying a catholic.
    have you got such a short memory,what happens when a outside state has complete religious control


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    LordSutch wrote: »
    That rule ^ no longer exists thank God, it was phased out in the 1970s, but only after it had made many Irish Protestant families 'just dissappear' and become RC overnight! Whole networks of Irish Protestant families are now staunch Roman Catholic families, directly because of the "The Ne Temere decree". It was the perfect ethnic cleansing tool, no death, & no blood, just hand over the children . . . .

    Ah come on - ethnic cleansing? Who was removed from the country? Also, I don't think anything can be made of that when held up to laws arising from the English Reformation that nominally, then through conformity largely erased the religion from an entire country.


  • Options
    #38
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »
    You couldn't be the PM either if you were catholic. Look at Tony Blair converted to catholicism but only after he left.
    I am glad that you brought this to our attention. I believe in fact that there is no law (at least not yet;)) pro-hibiting the prime minister from being a catholic but funnily enough there has'nt been one ! that I am aware of (maybe some sort of glass ceiling for catholic politicians).

    It would create some constitutional issues because the prime ministers appoints the church of England (is it just England) bishops to their places of influence in the house of Lords and that could be a bit awkward coming from a catholic pm. How would he know if they was good or bad Bish's.

    The queen might not laying down the(religious) law to a catholic pm as he/she might tell her the popes the "Daddy".


  • Options
    #39
    mossyc123
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭mossyc123


    1st Rule of boards.ie

    The Catholic Church/Catholics can never be the victim of discrimination, only the perpetrators.

    If the King/Queen has little or no influence on the Church of England why not allow him/her to be a Catholic.

    Anachronistic and silly law, should be changed even if only for appearances sake.


  • Options
    #40
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    getz wrote: »
    have you got such a short memory,what happens when a outside state has complete religious control
    If you are talking about the catholic church having too much control in Ireland post semi-independence they you are damn right. They were a bunch of idiots and the politicians even a bigger bunch of idiots to let them get away with it.

    but thats no reason to have the church of England having too big a say in Britain. Specific laws that prohibit the monarch from marrying a catholic has no place in this day and age. If every body else is okay why not a catholic.

    I am not too fond of those protestant bishops having their special priveldeged lounge seats in the house of Lords either. They are riding high on the hog over there and need some watching just like the catholic church needing watching in Ireland.


  • Options
    #41
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    But sure catholics and protestants are getting on much better these days and there is no need to rub the catholics nose in the dirt. Let bygones be bygones I say and lets get rid of that extra special law that specifically singles out catholics for "special" treatment !


  • Options
    #43
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    blinding wrote: »
    I am glad that you brought this to our attention. I believe in fact that there is no law (at least not yet;)) pro-hibiting the prime minister from being a catholic but funnily enough there has'nt been one ! that I am aware of (maybe some sort of glass ceiling for catholic politicians).

    It would create some constitutional issues because the prime ministers appoints the church of England (is it just England) bishops to their places of influence in the house of Lords and that could be a bit awkward coming from a catholic pm. How would he know if they was good or bad Bish's.

    The queen might not laying down the(religious) law to a catholic pm as he/she might tell her the popes the "Daddy".
    there is no law against the prime minister being catholic,but it would be akward in the part of the prime ministers role is appointing senior members of the church of england,under the act of 1829 were the prime minister to be a roman catholic or a jew ,a alternate system of ecclesiatical appointment would have to be devised,disraeli born a jew,tony blair waited untill he stood down,gorden brown is not church of england he is church of scotland,


  • Options
    #44
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Don't see the problem to be honest. Whats so important about the Catholic religion?


    if the next in line to the throne was only allowed marry a catholic , your ( faulty ) question might make sense but the fact of the matter is that the catholic faith is singled out for exclusion in this instance and their lies the problem

    ps , i myself am non religous


  • Options
    #45
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    Denerick wrote: »
    Because the Church of England is the established church of the British State. The monarch is the head of the anglican church. You do not make a Catholic the head of the church of England.

    Your question is about as sensible as asking why the Roman Catholic church doesn't drop its discriminatory approach to rejecting candidates for the papacy on the basis of their Protestantism or Buddhism.


    then how come the ban does not extend to muslims , jews or other world religons ?


  • Options
    #46
    Dozen Wicked Words
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,325 ✭✭✭✭Dozen Wicked Words


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    then how come the ban does not extend to muslims , jews or other world religons ?

    See Post 41. An act from a time when Catholics were enemy number one in Englands ruling classes eyes.


  • Options
    #47
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    blinding wrote: »
    I do and if nobody gives two stuffs why not change it. It will make me happy and surely thats worth doing.

    Unless you're British, its actually none of your business. In fact, why is it even in the Politics forum in the first place?


  • Options
    #48
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    dooferoaks wrote: »
    See Post 41. An act from a time when Catholics were enemy number one in Englands ruling classes eyes.

    altogether spurious


  • Options
    #49
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »
    You couldn't be the PM either if you were catholic.
    This is little more than a myth. Certainly it might make some clerical appointments in the name of the monarch slightly awkward, but there is no legal bar on Catholics in this respect.


  • Options
    #50
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #51
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Unless you're British, its actually none of your business. In fact, why is it even in the Politics forum in the first place?
    Given our very close political, geographic and economic relations with Britain, it's quite likely that many of us were, are, or have been British taxpayers if not British citizens, or subjects, as the case may be. If you don't like it, I'm sure you're not being compelled to respond.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    dooferoaks wrote: »
    See Post 41. An act from a time when Catholics were enemy number one in Englands ruling classes eyes.
    Actually you'll have to go back a little further and include France and Spain.


  • Options
    #53
    Essexboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Essexboy


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    • The Church of Ireland remained the official state church until it was disestablished on 1 January 1871
    • The Church in Wales was disestablished by Act of the British Parliament in 1920
    • The Church of Scotland Act 1921 formally recognised the Kirk's independence from
    the state.

    If changes could be made so far back in time when the churches were more influential, why not today?


  • Options
    #54
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Unless you're British, its actually none of your business. In fact, why is it even in the Politics forum in the first place?
    There are many Irish catholics in the North of Ireland (UK) and in Britain.

    Whether we like it or not there is great interaction between Britain and Ireland.

    With regard to the queens visit to Ireland should we as a largely catholic country be welcoming a member of a family that is unwilling to argue against this law that prevents the monarch or future monarch from marrying a catholic.

    If this law is to be changed it will be a political decision hopefully supported by many political parties and even with support from Irish political partiesl


  • Options
    #55
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    JustinDee wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with politics and especially nothing to do with Rep. of Ireland.
    If anything, this thread is for the History & Heritage forum where some of the posters might actually learn a thing or two from some of the regulars there instead of retroactively sifting through various wikipedia articles.
    I'm not in favour of bashing our nearest neighbour, but in fairness it is perfectly reasonable to question political or consitutional processes in other jurisdictions, from Nigeria (as per another thread) to this one. If you don't care, why are you even responding?


  • Options
    #56
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    later10 wrote: »
    I'm not in favour of bashing our nearest neighbour, but in fairness it is perfectly reasonable to question political or consitutional processes in other jurisdictions, from Nigeria (as per another thread) to this one. If you don't care, why are you even responding?

    I responded because it is quite literally none of our business.
    I'm sure there are the sanctimonious out there who are thinking that they should be able to say "I wouldn't marry any of the Royal Family but I could do if I wanted to...".


  • Options
    #57
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I think a bigger issue for British people is the fact that as long as they have a monarch church and state cannot be separated, like they should.


  • Options
    #58
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Yet ironically the UK is far more secular than here...


  • Options
    #59
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    JustinDee wrote: »
    I responded because it is quite literally none of our business.
    I'm sure there are the sanctimonious out there who are thinking that they should be able to say "I wouldn't marry any of the Royal Family but I could do if I wanted to...".
    Maybe you should report the thread, see what a moderator thinks? This thread could actually be an interesting discourse on republicanism (in its absolute meaning) if there wasn't someone coming on every few posts saying 'who cares, we don't live there'. We don't live in the US either, still there's nothing wrong with discussing their electoral system or their leadership and foreign policy - there's a whole entire subforum on it.

    Like I said, lots of us may have lived in the UK, still live and pay tax there, or have other connections, given the close relationship.


  • Options
    #60
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    later10 wrote: »
    Maybe you should report the thread, see what a moderator thinks? This thread could actually be an interesting discourse on republicanism (in its absolute meaning) if there wasn't someone coming on every few posts saying 'who cares, we don't live there'. We don't live in the US either, still there's nothing wrong with discussing their electoral system or their leadership and foreign policy - there's a whole entire subforum on it.

    Like I said, lots of us may have lived in the UK, still live and pay tax there, or have other connections, given the close relationship.

    *sigh*
    If you don't like what I post, don't read it or reply to it.
    The last line of my last post is how some of the other posts are reading and as usual people will ignore the history behind such a decree or situation and just equate the word 'Catholic' with 'Ireland' in order to look for some offence to take upon.

    My view. My perspective. No biggie. Its an internet forum, not the street.


Advertisement