Brown to push for royal Roman Catholics law change - Page 2

**Maggy** · 25-11-2009, 22:45

It's a pointless anachronism in the 21st century but why now? Why not 10,20 years ago.

rogerdraig · 25-11-2009, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

do i have to be ,to be against this ?

on this i am partly with you so no you dont have to be

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by pachelbel

Not a over-reaction at all.

Even you Chris are good enough to be King of this country regardless of your beliefs.

I know I am. I may be RC but I was born and bred here.

unfortunately unless a RC PM was willing to say he wouldn't follow the pope i can see it being a very big problem

even though i agree with those who voted against see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...bryo-bill.html

the problem is it can be also seen as putting the Pope in front of the country which is why the church here is although part of government still below the government

I know that those mp's may say it was just their conscience they were following but i doubt many would believe them

and having the head of state ( albeit a mostly neutered one ) in the same position would also be seen as problematic

alferret · 25-11-2009, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Must ... resist ... cheap ... shot ... about ... Germans ...

LOL dont resist, take that cheap shot

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by pachelbel

Are you kidding. Are you BNP!!!!!!

This is 2009!!!

Tony. · 25-11-2009, 23:29

Hmmmmm this would really mess up one of the titles held by the British Monarchs:-

Supreme Governor of the Church of England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme...rch_of_England

Can't somehow see them letting a 'left footer' have that gig

Mr Angry · 26-11-2009, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6931557.ece
why doe's this bloke want to change everything[well many things ] this country stands for .

I, personally, don't think that being constitutionally anti catholic and misogynistic are things that any country should really want to "stand for" or boast about in this day and age.

Bricktop · 26-11-2009, 09:41

Just get shot of the Monarchy they are nothing but free loading parasites anyway.

popper · 26-11-2009, 09:55

OC theres the real questions as regards The REAL Royal Family/Britain's Real Monarch ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o7vD4uHsU

jamiefrost · 26-11-2009, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I, personally, don't think that being constitutionally anti catholic and misogynistic are things that any country should really want to "stand for" or boast about in this day and age.

So when is the papal throne being opened up to Church of England clergy or any other relegion for that matter. Or is it OK for them but not anyone else?

I don't see how anyone form a different relegion can truely be the head of a different relegion.

JJ

nomadking · 26-11-2009, 10:10

The main issue for me is that, Catholicism is one of those religions that is not fully tolerant of having non-believers in the family(eg Tony Blair was forced to convert). This would mean that once a Catholic became Monarch, no other religion would be allowed in the 'family'.

**Hugh** · 26-11-2009, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

The main issue for me is that, Catholicism is one of those religions that is not fully tolerant of having non-believers in the family(eg Tony Blair was forced to convert). This would mean that once a Catholic became Monarch, no other religion would be allowed in the 'family'.

"forced to convert" - get real. He got married to a Catholic in 1980, and converted in December 2007 - real rush job there!

nomadking · 26-11-2009, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

"forced to convert" - get real. He got married to a Catholic in 1980, and converted in December 2007 - real rush job there!

He admitted that he didn't do it sooner for political reasons. It's not as if that is the only case. An example is just that, an example of other occurences of the same thing.

Quote:

"Frankly, this all began with my wife," he said in August this year. "I began to go to mass and we went together. We could have gone to the Anglican or Catholic church â€“ guess who won?"

From an article in the Guardian(an approved publication, I hope):-

Quote:

The agnostic liberals who govern us want the act repealed. Tony Blair does, too, but he refused to pursue the matter when he was prime minister because he was too busy doing other stuff: going to war, promoting abortion rights, sucking up to the military-industrial complex, encouraging safe sex among teenagers.

Like the good Catholic he is.

Quote:

Let's flip the argument. Suppose a Catholic were allowed to marry the heir to the throne â€“ ie, the future supreme governor of the Church of England and defender of the Protestant religion. Her (or his) children, the eldest of whom would in turn become supreme governor, would presumably have to be brought up as Anglicans and at the very least therefore she (or he) would have to show a decent respect for the C of E. But that would not be easy. Rome is rather more discriminatory than the English establishment. Even if she is far too polite to say so these days, Rome regards Anglicanism as a heretical sect, and its bishops as no more than laymen in drag. Reflections of this sort might lead to the sort of insupportable tensions that can arise from cognitive dissonance.

popper · 26-11-2009, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I may (possibly) be good enough to lead the country, but I can't, by definition, be King ... that being a hereditary position and all. I do take your point though.

That said, it's not about who's 'good enough' - this is inextricably tied to the Church of England and the monarch's constitutional position in that institution as well as the State. Unpicking all of that is a lot more complex than it first appears, and the fact that the British Monarch is separately head of state of a whole load of Commonwealth countries makes it more difficult still.

My main objection is to Brown's shallow attempt to get news coverage at any cost on any issue other than the substantive issues of the day. The amount of time required to fix this would make the fox hunting debacle look like a school debating society.

nip over to Australia and marry the oldest girl, princess rebecca or princess mandy, so becoming prince Chris and your all set to be the potential king one day

you can imagine someone doing exactly that now, so you better be quick or loose out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXA3...eature=related

**Hugh** · 26-11-2009, 10:42

nk, loved the way you quoted a Guardian opinion as fact.

Bricktop · 26-11-2009, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

(eg Tony Blair was forced to convert).

Did that b1tch Cherrie Blair put a gun to his head!

Mr Angry · 26-11-2009, 10:46

"Tony Blair does, too, but he refused to pursue the matter when he was prime minister because he was too busy doing other stuff: going to war, promoting abortion rights, sucking up to the military-industrial complex, encouraging safe sex among teenagers".
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Like the good Catholic he is.

He certainly wasn't a catholic at that particular time - and it was precisely because his intention to convert was widely known that he didn't pursue the constitutional change.

By the way, I'm certainly not attempting to defend the catholic church, I'm merely pointing out that being discriminatory on the basis of gender or religion is not something that a constitutional democracy ought to be proud of.