300 years of state-sponsored discrimination

  • Thread starter Thread starter dosdog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if there are any rules against Protestants being the Pope.

Seriously guys, I think some of the people who have a major issue with this either don’t understand or aren’t thinking it through properly. The primary role of the British Monarch is The Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, how can such a position be open to Catholics?
 
Kadaveri said:
I wonder if there are any rules against Protestants being the Pope.

Seriously guys, I think some of the people who have a major issue with this either don’t understand or aren’t thinking it through properly. The primary role of the British Monarch is The Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, how can such a position be open to Catholics?
Click to expand...
thefreedictionary.com/disestablishment
 
1535 Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is put to death for upholding against Henry VIII the Pope’s supremacy over the English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of the oath taken by archbishops before entering into office: "I, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to my Lord Pope Celestine, and his successors canonically succeeding
newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
 
It is not a question if it should it be done but a question if they have the will to do it.
 
dosdog said:
It is not a question if it should it be done
Click to expand...
Sure it’s a question.

Give me a rational reason why the monarchy should be abolished. Not a lot of links. An actual argument, in your own words, with one sentence leading on to the next one.

Edwin
 
dosdog said:
It is not a question if it should it be done
Click to expand...
Sure it’s a question.

Give me a rational reason for your position. Not a lot of links. An actual argument, in your own words, with one sentence leading on to the next one.

Edwin
 
Just because Anglicanism is the established church doesn’t mean that the Bill of Rights and other documents have to retain anti-Catholic language.

A simple solution is to change the text and drop the mention of Catholicism (papists, etc) and merely state that the monarch must be a member of the Anglican Church.

The attack on Catholicism, which is enshrined in the text, fosters bigotry. As it was said, the monarch supposedly can marry a Buddhist, Muslim, atheist or Hindu – but not a Catholic.

That is why it cannot be defended as it stands. It would be simple enough to say that the monarch and spouse have to be members of the Church of England.
 
The act of settlement, 1701
And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same,
guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy

Last week, the state of California avoided a possible constitutional confrontation over its requirement that all public employees sign an oath affirming that they will “support and defend” the United States and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/11/7614/
 
Contarini said:
And you still have not explained how this is relevant.

I repeat: the passage of time is not in and of itself a moral factor.

Edwin
Click to expand...
On September 10, 1870 Italy declared war on the Papal States, and the Italian Army, commanded by General Raffaele Cadorna, crossed the papal frontier on 11 September and advanced slowly toward Rome, hoping that a peaceful entry could be negotiated. The Italian Army reached the Aurelian Walls on 19 September and placed Rome under a state of siege. Although the pope’s tiny army was incapable of defending the city, Pius IX ordered it to put up at least a token resistance to emphasize that Italy was acquiring Rome by force and not consent. The city was captured on September 20 1870. Rome and Latium were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy after a plebiscite held in the following October.

Lateran Treaty (or Concordat with Rome) of 1929, which created the State of the Vatican City, forming the sovereign territory of the Holy See (which is also a subject under international law in its own right). Vatican City can be seen as the modern descendent of the Papal States.
answers.com/topic/papal-states

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
 
reggieM said:
Just because Anglicanism is the established church doesn’t mean that the Bill of Rights and other documents have to retain anti-Catholic language.

A simple solution is to change the text and drop the mention of Catholicism (papists, etc) and merely state that the monarch must be a member of the Anglican Church.

The attack on Catholicism, which is enshrined in the text, fosters bigotry. As it was said, the monarch supposedly can marry a Buddhist, Muslim, atheist or Hindu – but not a Catholic.

That is why it cannot be defended as it stands. It would be simple enough to say that the monarch and spouse have to be members of the Church of England.
Click to expand...
Now this is an excellent point. The problem of course is Scotland. I think this could be addressed by disestablishing the Church of Scotland. (Or by granting independence, which I favor although it would make my citizenship situation even more complicated, since my parents were born in Scotland and I was born in England!)

I would favor something like “a member of the Church of England or of a church in communion with the Church of England.” By the Porvoo Agreement that would include Lutherans.

The main problem as I see it with a Catholic monarch is that such a monarch could not receive communion in the Church of England. Of course, one of the reasons I favor that in principle in a monarchy is so the Church could excommunicate the monarch if necessary, something the C of E has obviously never been able or willing to do!

Edwin
 
You got that right, certainly not me and any Irishman worth their salt, we have a name for those people.

Mine too.
Most people in England are bemused by the north of Ireland and the situation there
Click to expand...
Yes, they are, many are ignorant, and I’m sure many don’t give a damn.

Yes but the bad seed was planted along time ago, as for religion being a convenient flag, for a minority yes, and can you blame them when if you were a Catholic, you were discriminated in housing and jobs.

As I lived through it up here, I do know what I’m talking about.

But things have changed, this country is unrecognizable from what I saw for 35 plus years.
 
While I think the monarch should be a member of whatever religion they, themselves, wish – or none at all for that matter, apart from the architecture of where they’re married and buried, what on earth difference would it make in a country where most people have very little interest in religion?

Apart from Irish people and Americans, would anybody else be bothered?
 
Kaninchen said:
While I think the monarch should be a member of whatever religion they, themselves, wish – or none at all for that matter, apart from the architecture of where they’re married and buried, what on earth difference would it make in a country where most people have very little interest in religion?

Apart from Irish people and Americans, would anybody else be bothered?
Click to expand...
How about if we require the Govener of Alabama to Join The Anglican Church?
 
The act of settlement, 1701
And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with a negro, or or marry a negro, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same,
guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top