300 years of state-sponsored discrimination

  • Thread starter Thread starter dosdog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The English Reformation under Henry VIII gave rise in England to increased fears of foreign, Catholic invasion; control of Ireland thus became even more imperative. Henry VIII put down a rebellion (1534-37), abolished the monasteries, confiscated lands, and established a Protestant “Church of Ireland” (1537).
encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Ireland.html
 
dosdog said:
Here is a solution - Reinstate The Republic of Cromwell
then we can do away with both the Monarchy & COE rule
Click to expand...
Why would you want that? It was a military dictatorship, and hardly tolerant of Anglicans or of Catholics.

Your posts are making less and less sense.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Why would you want that? It was a military dictatorship, and hardly tolerant of Anglicans or of Catholics.

Your posts are making less and less sense.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Friday, October 21, 2005
Repeal Anti-Catholic Section of Act of Settlement 1701
Irish National Caucus
Fr. Sean Mc Manus
Friday, October 21, 2005

Our campaign to force the British Government and the Queen of
England to repeal the sectarian and anti-Catholic section of The Act
of Settlement, 1701, has evoked a considerable response. (To
remind our readers: that provision mandates that the heir to the
British Crown must be Protestant and that if he/she becomes
Catholic, or marries a Catholic, then he/she must forfeit the Throne,
and – I kid you not – “the people are absolved of their allegiance”
So if the universally esteemed Queen Elizabeth 11 felt conscience-
bound to convert to Catholicism, she would have to renounce the
Thrones and, yes that’s right, we are speaking of today, 2005, not
1701).
irishnationalcaucus.blogspot.com/2005/10/repeal-anti-catholic-section-of-act-of.html
 
If you have an argument, make one. I will not respond to further catenae of links.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
I think there’s some serious shortsightedness going on on this thread. In America there is no state church. That’s fine. In England there is (and in Scotland, but it’s a different one!). In my book that’s fine too. You are applying the rules of one society to another, and I don’t think that’s fair. I see no precept of justice or natural law that is violated by the rule in question. (I would like to see it changed, because I would like to see the Church of England united to Rome. But my views have nothing to do with an opposition to such rules in general.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
Being the Monarch is the head of the Church of England(I think?) how could they allow a Catholic to head up a proestestant church???
 
estesbob said:
Being the Monarch is the head of the Church of England(I think?) how could they allow a Catholic to head up a proestestant church???
Click to expand...
This is how you do it

Edward, however, died only six years into his reign. He was succeeded by Mary (1553-1558), who was Henry’s first child by Catherine of Aragon. Mary had been raised in France and was devoutly Catholic. When she assumed the throne of England, she declared England to be a Catholic country and assertively went about converting churches back to Catholic practices
wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
 
dosdog said:
This is how you do it

Edward, however, died only six years into his reign. He was succeeded by Mary (1553-1558), who was Henry’s first child by Catherine of Aragon. Mary had been raised in France and was devoutly Catholic. When she assumed the throne of England, she declared England to be a Catholic country and assertively went about converting churches back to Catholic practices
wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
Click to expand...
Obviously that’s not how you do it, since as soon as she became queen she reunited the Church of England with Rome!

Actually it wasn’t unheard-of in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for the monarch to be of one religion and the country of another. This was most notably the case in England under James II. It was precisely this situation that led to the so-called “Glorious Revolution” and the law saying that Catholics could not be monarchs.

The monarch is not in fact the “head” of the Church of England (this title was taken by Henry VIII but is not used today), but does have a strong link to the established Church.

I don’t think it would be impossible to have the monarch of one church and the nation of another. But it would necessitate some change in how the monarchy functions, and I am an old-fashioned monarchist (as such things are reckoned today) who does not want the link between monarch and nation to be weakened. As I said, if the Church of England were united to Rome, the situation would be different–indeed the shoe would be on the other foot.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Obviously that’s not how you do it, since as soon as she became queen she reunited the Church of England with Rome!

Actually it wasn’t unheard-of in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for the monarch to be of one religion and the country of another. This was most notably the case in England under James II. It was precisely this situation that led to the so-called “Glorious Revolution” and the law saying that Catholics could not be monarchs.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Catholics set to pass Anglicans as leading UK church
Roman Catholicism is set to become the dominant religion in Britain for the first time since the Reformation because of massive migration from Catholic countries across the world.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece

Contarini you support discrimination and taking land by force as long as it is against the Catholic Church ?

The English Reformation under Henry VIII abolished the monasteries, confiscated lands, and established a Protestant “Church of Ireland” (1537).
encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Ireland.html
 
dosdog said:
Contarini you support discrimination and taking land by force as long as it is against the Catholic Church ?
Click to expand...
I dont see how you could possibly infer from anything he posted that he supports the above. he is merely pointing out the practical problems of having a catholic be the head of the Church of England.

Should the Church change it rules so a non-catholic can head the Catholic Church?
 
estesbob said:
I dont see how you could possibly infer from anything he posted that he supports the above. he is merely pointing out the practical problems of having a catholic be the head of the Church of England.

Should the Church change it rules so a non-catholic can head the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Here is a solution - Reinstate The Republic of Cromwell
then we can do away with both the Monarchy & COE rule

Cromwell believed in religious toleration for some, tolerated Jews and non-Anglican Protestants

Charles a execution January 30th, 1649. England now had no monarchy.

Slave Trade Act 1807
spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm
 
dosdog said:
Here is a solution - Reinstate The Republic of Cromwell
then we can do away with both the Monarchy & COE rule

Cromwell believed in religious toleration for some, tolerated Jews and non-Anglican Protestants

Charles a execution January 30th, 1649. England now had no monarchy.

Slave Trade Act 1807
spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm
Click to expand...
Im sorry I replied. I was under the imrpession this was serious discussion.
 
estesbob said:
Im sorry I replied. I was under the imrpession this was serious discussion.
Click to expand...
1700 - In June, Massachusetts passes a law ordering all Roman Catholic priests to leave the colony within three months, upon penalty of life imprisonment or execution. New York then passes a similar law

Greenville made a passionate speech where he argued that the trade was “contrary to the principles of justice, humanity and sound policy” and criticised fellow members for “not having abolished the trade long ago”.
spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm
 
Here in Alabama, we have a lot of old laws on the books that are never enforced. Every now and then, some goofball arrests someone on one. We look at idiots. For instance, it is stautory rape for an unmarried, unrelated man to have his shoes off in the presence of an unmarried, unrelated woman with her shoes off. I mean, come on folks. We cannot arrest everyone in a shoe store. It would be best if these laws were gone, but at best they can only be repeeled.

Same with the law against teh Catholic Church. It doesn;t really matter until someone decides to enforce it of challenge it. It cannot be erased and should be abolished, but I do not see England of 2008 as anti-Catholic.
 
ralphinal said:
Here in Alabama, we have a lot of old laws on the books that are never enforced. Every now and then, some goofball arrests someone on one. We look at idiots. For instance, it is stautory rape for an unmarried, unrelated man to have his shoes off in the presence of an unmarried, unrelated woman with her shoes off. I mean, come on folks. We cannot arrest everyone in a shoe store. It would be best if these laws were gone, but at best they can only be repeeled.

Same with the law against teh Catholic Church. It doesn;t really matter until someone decides to enforce it of challenge it. It cannot be erased and should be abolished, but I do not see England of 2008 as anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
CATHOLIC CHURCH TARGETTED IN N.I.
A Catholic church has been damaged by a bomb attack in Co Down, the PSNI revealed yesterday.

jp2dundalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/catholic-church-has-been-damaged-by.html
 
From that link
It’s the work of a single individual who doesn’t represent anybody except their own disturbed views. Relationships here are very, very good."
Click to expand...
Again, 2008 England is not anti-Catholic. There may be some British Citizens who are, but the nation is not.
 
From what I know of the situation, I agree. I had a professor of history 15 years ago from England. It was a military history class. He wanted all of us to study NI because of the “Plethura of conflict minded people.” At that time, that was the terrorism that was studied along with Palestinian. The organised Al Qida type was later.
 
Rather, “early modern” attitudes. Do we really have any evidence that people in the Stone Age behaved this way?

Sorry to be obnoxious, but one of my issues with this whole thread is the “whig” assumption that the passage of time marks an inevitable progression from bad, intolerant, and violent to good, tolerant, and peaceful.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top