Thursday, March 27, 2008
Britishness doing fine?
A new MORI poll about identities shows Britishness seems to be doing fine in its three constituent parts of Great Britain:
81% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, compared with 87% in Wales and with 70% in Scotland and it’s worth noting that, that for all the focus on the role on the Union in Scotland, 71% in London felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, virtually the same percentage as in Scotland.
The regional identifications were stronger but the poll seems to indicate that the vast majority have no difficulty with multiple overlapping identities:
* 82% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to England
* 91%% in Scotland felt a strong sense of belonging to Scotland
* 95% in Wales felt a strong sense of belonging to Wales
PS I am away for the day so apologies to anyone I have been debating with on other threads it will be this evening before I can respond.
Fair Deal @ 10:23 AM
from ur name and remark I assume ur a troll from under a stone? darn, why do i always get sucked in........... lol
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 07:58 PM“But if you feel the two are linked, why is the Act of Settlement not “slightly downgraded” to a promise by the Protestant monarch to do his/her best to raise the childer as Protestants.”
Yes - a fair point George - I agree with this - like for like is absolutely fine by me.
I will also check up on my error on the Act of Settlement date and find out exactly what I should have said here....speak soon.Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 09:20 PMI can’t be certain but was Ne Temere actually legally written into the constitution in the south, and thus legally enforceable. Because the Act of Settlement is actually LAW in britain.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 11:25 PMRepublicanStones,
I can’t be certain but was Ne Temere actually legally written into the constitution in the south, and thus legally enforceable. Because the Act of Settlement is actually LAW in britain.No, it wasn’t.
Under common law, ante-nuptial agreements or undertakings are not legally enforceable but the Irish Supreme Court has held that Article 42.1, which guarantees to respect the inalienable right of parents to provide for the religious and moral education of their children, means that pre-nuptial arrangements are covered by this article, as long as both parents agree.
In other words, unlike the UK a promise before marriage by both parents to raise future children in a certain religious tradition has been held to be legally enforceable in Ireland.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 12:40 AMCheers George, so Ne Temere is not part of the Irish constitution, one religion is not given preference over another, merely the right of the parents to choose which faith....
‘The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.’
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 01:52 AMIndeed the question is important. Unlike the question, the flexibility of the Union means people are not forced to choose one and only one. They can choose to be one or more. Hence “no difficulty with multiple overlapping identities”
Well, the evidence from the Social Attitudes (which is an annual poll and unlike the MORI poll wasn’t commissioned by a certain political party) does clearly show more people, particularly in Scotland, are choosing one(identity). And it isn’t British.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 10:00 AM“In other words, unlike the UK a promise before marriage by both parents to raise future children in a certain religious tradition has been held to be legally enforceable in Ireland”
Yes George - this is exactly where Ne Temere shows its value does it not - even if it is now a simple promise by Catholic parties to do “whatever they can” (!!!) to ensure the upbringing of all children as Catholics - the Ne Temere mindset has directly led to the very enforcements of law you allude to in a couple of high profile historical cases in the South.
P.S - Had a quick look at Ne Temere last night again - it appears that this is simply an expansion or update of an older Catholic decree - Tamseti was it?
However my original point that the Act of Settlement should be scrapped along with Ne Temere still stands - would you agree yourself?Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 11:16 AMHowever my original point that the Act of Settlement should be scrapped along with Ne Temere still stands - would you agree yourself?
How are the too connected. Which political post, in either the UK or Ireland is tied to “Ne Temere”
Anyone in the ROI can achieve any political position regardless of their religion. This is not the case in the UK where the position of head of state is directly tied to a particular religion.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 11:50 AMHi Kloot - there are some folks that argue for the retention of the Act using Ne Temere for justification on the issue of sucession (amongst other things such as the issue of loyalty and deference to an exterior power outside the UK - ie the Pope)- although the decree has been “relaxed” the effect and ramifications for a Catholic monarch (Spain/Belgium for example)would have a similar effect. I ask you the same question - would you scrap both while scrapping one in theory - even if it is just for both being outdated concepts with no place in todays society (ROI or Britain)
Your second point about reaching any political position in Ireland regardless of religion is accepted without argument.Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 12:26 PMR.Stones: “I had no idea people on the brew paid taxes towards their own benefits.....with what exactly?”
Every time they buy something that has VAT on it, or pay car tax, or pay duty on alcohol, or buy petrol, etc. etc.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 12:50 PMwould you scrap both while scrapping one in theory - even if it is just for both being outdated concepts with no place in todays society (ROI or Britain)
To be honest Democratic, I think both are dated and should be scrapped. The problem for me is in tying the scrapping of the two together.From what ive read of “Ne Temere”, its the church trying to impose a rule on its followers. Its followers, as they can with any of the churches teachings, can and do choose to ignore it. The act of settlement has no such flexibility.
Both are outdated concepts.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 12:51 PMDemocratic,
Yes George - this is exactly where Ne Temere shows its value does it not - even if it is now a simple promise by Catholic parties to do “whatever they can” (!!!) to ensure the upbringing of all children as Catholics - the Ne Temere mindset has directly led to the very enforcements of law you allude to in a couple of high profile historical cases in the South.I can only speculate as to mindsets as all this stuff happened long before I was born but the historical cases of which you speak seem to me to be much more an issue of the constitutionally protected parental rights under Article 42.1 than they are about Ne Temere.
To my knowledge, there have only ever been two historical cases directly involving this issue, the most recent one coming way back in 1959. One involved the schooling of children in a Protestant/Catholic marriage (Re Tilson) and the other involved a Catholic father of five who converted to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and wanted to convert his kids against the wishes of his wife (Re May).
It was held in both cases that the initial pre-marital agreement stood.
This only relates to marital agreements between two parents. For example, in the same period (1955) a Catholic father’s stipulation in his will that his daughter who converted to COI would only get her bequeath if she raised her children (his grandchildren) as Catholics, was held to be void as it fettered the daughter’s parental rights.
I think the reading of Article 42.1 at that time is best summed up in Tilson (and upheld in May):
“The true principle under our Constitution is this. The parents - the father and the mother - have a joint power and duty in respect of the religious education of their children. If they together make a decision and put it into practice it is not in the power of the father - nor is it in the power of the mother - to revoke such decisions against the will of the other party.”
But even if we accept the mindset argument for 1950s Ireland, none of this has anything to do with the current situation as the repeal of Ne Temere in 1970 means that you no longer have situations where the permission of both parents is sought regarding the upbringing of children which is probably one of the reasons we haven’t had another case in the intervening 50 years.
However my original point that the Act of Settlement should be scrapped along with Ne Temere still stands - would you agree yourself?
As I already pointed out, Ne Temere was scrapped by the Catholic Church as far back as 1970. As for the Act of Settlement, I don’t believe it has a place in a modern democracy. You know you are off the pace if the Catholic Church is ahead of you on modern thought.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 12:58 PMWhere I live the blood of Ulstermen remains pure, we have rejected the grasp of Satan and have no intention of allowing him to clench his black claws into our pure hearts. For let it be clear to you who try to poison the children of ulster’s minds with your debasive notions of our proud heritage. The monarch has never let Ulster down, and for this reason I am confident in my determination of who I am; a nephew of Britain, a cousin of Scotland, the son of an ulster-scot, a God fearing Ulster man, and a subject of her most honourable Queen Elizabeth II of England.
May the good Lord God protect my proud heritage, my protestant brothers and sisters, and of course, her most congenial Queen Elizabeth II!
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 12:59 PMHi George - I hope Mr. Bingham isn’t lampooning me on this one for my views aren’t that far removed from your own in effect - I’m not some super-Prod-Ulsterman caricature - anyway you seem to be very knowledgeable about legal matters (more so than me)but promises or assurances given via Ne Temere or attributed to it could easily lead directly to the type of legal proceeding that you so describe under ROI law no? Notwithstanding the downgrade of the decree (for it has not been scrapped as you say merely altered - and only slightly in effect in my opinion) do you not think it should be completely scrapped along with the Act of Settlement?
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 01:16 PMLOL Robert Bingham...you’re having a laugh!
“.....and a subject of her most honourable Queen Elizabeth II of England.”
Tell me this, the Protestant guilt of beheading one British monarch and unloyaly siding with a foreigner over a British monarch in 1690 must be insurmountable on their conscious today. For deep in their psyche must be a cause of shame and guilt.
No wonder we get the neverending and over exagerated outpourings of unflinching loyalty to the ‘British’ crown by Unionists today. For it really hides their act of betrayal.Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 01:26 PMDemocratic,
I don’t see why the Catholic Church should scrap a requirement on its followers that they promise to follow its religious code as best as possible. That’s fair enough to me.My problem with Ne Temere would have been the requirements placed on the non-Catholic partner (convert and raise children as Catholic).
Now that the pressure on the non-Catholic partner is gone and they no longer have to promise anything to the Catholic Church, I couldn’t give a hoot about whatever the policy is post Ne Temere.
As for Irish law, some might say what’s wrong with making parents hold to promises they both agreed on? You might be grateful of this legal protection if your other half woke up one day feeling all Benedictine.
On the Act of Settlement, it relates to a head of state not a religion. I don’t think a modern democracy should be judged by the same standards.
The State has to represent all its citizens, the Catholic Church only represents Catholics.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 01:27 PMHi George - doesn’t look like we are going to see eye to eye on this after all - Firstly the idea of making the Catholic partner promise to bring the children up as Catholic but not the other partner is really not much of a concession in realistic terms is it - I for one cannot see it solving any potential problems whatsoever within mixed marriages - this guideline would obviously apply to a theoretical UK Catholic (practising)monarch also though would it not? You can see the outworking of this surely. Also secondly the head of State (King/Queen)IS the head of the Church of England by default - they are not separate posts -as perhaps they should be.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 01:43 PMDemocratic,
it’s a huge concession for the non-Catholic in realistic terms.During Ne Temere, the position for the non-Catholic was convert to Catholicism and raise your children as Catholic.
Post Ne Temere, as in where we have been for the last 38 years, the position for the non-Catholic is stay as you are religionwise and raise your children as you and your partner want.
If you don’t see the difference between the two for the non-Catholic partner then we definitely won’t agree.
The COI was disestablished in Ireland 140 years ago, maybe it’s time the UK followed suit.Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 02:05 PM“Post Ne Temere, as in where we have been for the last 38 years, the position for the non-Catholic is stay as you are religionwise and raise your children as you and your partner want.”
Except thats not really true George - the Catholic partner is expected to and indeed made to “promise” to do “everything in their power” to bring the children up as Catholic - This is obviously somewhat different to raising the children in a manner decided purely by the parents - in terms of a Catholic King or Queen who take their religion seriously...well the effect on sucession is clear - so again I ask you should both acts/decrees not be scrapped?(Properly and not some halfway house business)
And yes I do agree that Head of State should be separate from Head of Church - I was not excusing - just pointing out where your point was falling down.Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 02:14 PMDemocratic,
Except thats not really true George -You have provided no evidence to back up that comment, merely stated it as fact. So if you wish to counter what I have said, I would be grateful if you could provide some evidence to back up your thesis that things are as you say they are.
Before you do so, I should point out that the Economic and Social Review in a 1996 survey found that in 1973 around 50% of all mixed marriages in Ireland involved a conversion while this had fallen to just 14% by 1995.
So, the research evidence seems to be backing me up.
I might as well share this with you too as it’s interesting. It relates to the rate of intermarriage in the Republic:
By the 1980s the same survey estimated that 40% of the Irish Republic’s Protestant population were in mixed marriages and this rate is likely to be much higher today.
By 1995, 18% of mixed marriages took place in registry offices, 25% in Protestant churches and 57% in Catholic ones.
Percentage of native born Protestants who are religiously intermarried as a percentage of all married Protestants. The rate is given for
Protestants by the birth cohort of the female partner as recorded in the 1991 Census.Number of of Female of Marriage among Native Born Intermarriages Partner Protestants
pre 1926 — 6.1%
1927-31 - 7.5%
1932-36 - 7.8%
1937-41 - 10.3%
1942-46 - 12.9%
1947-51 - 19.1%
1952-56 - 26.7%
1957-61 - 32.5%
1962-66 - 33.5%http://www.esr.ie/vol30_2/1_O’Leary.pdf
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 02:43 PMRobert Bingham -
“I am confident in my determination of who I am; a nephew of Britain, a cousin of Scotland, the son of an ulster-scot, a God fearing Ulster man, and a subject of her most honourable Queen Elizabeth II of England.May the good Lord God protect my proud heritage, my protestant brothers and sisters, and of course, her most congenial Queen Elizabeth II!”
So no mention of your neighbours and fellow country men?
I’m also curious how the “Good lord” determines who is or isn’t to fall under its protection.Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 02:56 PMDemocratic,
another statistic that could be relevant:According to the 2006 Census, 10% of Church of Ireland Protestants were “born” Catholic, the highest number in 70 years. I don’t know of any research done to ascertain the percentage of this number that converted on marriage but it I believe it is safe to say it indicates that the Ireland of today is a far cry from the pre-170 one where Ne Temere was still a factor.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 03:28 PMSorry George you are arguing against a point I never made by the look of it with various percentages to back it up - nor did you answer my question I note! However what did I write in my last post that I need to provide evidence to back up? - we are largely in the realms of theory here - was there something in particular - the bit about Catholic partners being made to promise etc? - I can do that if you like? The bit about mixed marriages being free to do as they please without pressure from the church? My contention in theory again of how Ne Temere could affect a Catholic monarchy - for this is where my argument stems and its main focus - and comparison with the act of settlement. I am not trying to rag you with this nor hopefully bore others with off-topic ramblings.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 03:28 PMDemocratic,
I’m not sure what question I haven’t answered. I thought you were of the view that Ne Temere was still a factor in mixed marriages while I was arguing the contrary.But if you are actually talking about a Catholic monarchy, it would agree that for them the new promise equates to pretty much the same thing if you were also the head of the Catholic Church at the same time. But it’s a little different for the man/woman on the ground.
On to the Act of Settlement. I don’t have an issue with a Protestant monarchy but I do with the monarch also being head of state.
Either the monarch is no longer head of the COE (and accordingly able to raise Catholic/Aethiest/whatever children if the situation arises) or the Protestant monarch stops being head of state.
The head of state should reflect all the people he/she represents, not just one section for perpetuity.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 03:49 PMEither the monarch is no longer head of the COE (and accordingly able to raise Catholic/Aethiest/whatever children if the situation arises) or the Protestant monarch stops being head of state.
The head of state should reflect all the people he/she represents, not just one section for perpetuity.
Yes - I agree with this much George - no issues for me there.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 04:12 PM
