Saturday, May 17, 2008
Keep the faith? Not likely, old chep…
PRINCESS Anne’s son Peter Philips will be married to Canadian Autumn Kelly at Windsor Castle later today. Thanks to the Act of Settlement, Ms Kelly had to renounce her Catholic faith in order for her husband to retain his claim to the throne. He’s only be 11th in line (and a commoner), so her conversion was pretty token. While it may be natural for those born with a silver spoon in their mouths not to rock the boat, had Ms Kelly been a Muslim, Jew, witch or Satanist none of these problems would have arisen. And if she’d kept her faith, perhaps the couple would be getting more than half a million from Hello! - perhaps they might have even earned some wider respect?
Belfast Gonzo @ 08:03 AM
http://www.keysofpeter.org/w.project/barberi.htm
There was an inquisition to convert England.
What did I do wrong with the embedding?
G.
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 11:39 PMSeimi and Rory
Will you Gooners give it a rest about Pat Jennings? He was a Spurs legend and just because Burkinshaw had a crazy moment and sold him to you lot doesn’t change that. His heart was always at the Lane.
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 08:50 AMWhen you look at the variety of Protestantism, in theology and practice, from smells and bells to electric guitars, from unitarianism to believing in transubstantiation, and indeed looking at many forms of Roman Catholicism incorporating speaking in tongues and other new practices, there is only one thing which separates Roman Catholics from Protestants per se, and that is accepting the authority of the Pope as a divinely empowered person who must be obeyed. Nothing else is unique to Catholicism.
If you don’t believe it then there is no sense in calling yourself a Roman Catholic, and you will be able to find a Protestant church which reflects whatever other views you have about religion. If you do believe it then you cannot be other than a Roman Catholic. Therefore the Catholicism / Protestantism difference simply boils down to whether someone accepts that the Pope has a divine right to tell them what to do or not. Such a concept of fealty is medieval, anti-democratic and illiberal. It is a cut down version of the divine right of kings such as putting divine power through Shinto onto the living Japanese emperor or on Kim Jung-Il in the Juche religion. Therefore Catholics can only be liberal to the extent that they behave in a way that they do not believe in the only thing that makes them different from Protestants. Yet “Catholics” ignore these teachings all the time, making them hypocrites. In truth most Catholics in Europe and North America today are actually de facto Protestants. They just, like Luther for a time, never formally left the Catholic church.
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 10:09 AMThe Pope is the figurehead on earth of the Catholic faith. He speaks for the Church; he doesn’t dictate. If people no longer identify with any expressed views they are free to associate to other belief systems. In this way the Church and the people are free. Any faith system can (and should) publicly state what they believe. It seems perfectly reasonably to assume that any faith system will want it’s beliefs passed on to future generations.
The issue here deals with the fact that the British head of state discriminates against the subjects of the monarch on grounds of religion. In the 21st century, all belief and specifically all “religious” belief is not respected in the UK. Because this is a reflection of the British head of state, it consequently says much about the UK, it’s people and what they are – none of it complimentary.
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 10:35 AMGert,
You correctly point out that many, perhaps most, Catholics are hypocrites. So indeed they are as are most Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists and Jews. So too I would venture are the many rationalists who cross their fingers when walking into danger or consult their horoscopes “just for a laugh”. And a good job too, I say.
Hypocrisy is an essential element for a peaceful life in any rule driven environment and it is the martinet who would eschew the practice of tolerance that hypocrisy allows for who gets up rverybody’s arse and makes life uncomfortable for the rest of us.
God bless the hypocrites say I - it is the zealots that cause all the trouble.
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 10:46 AMRory ,
‘Hypocrisy is an essential element for a peaceful life ----- makes life uncomfortable for the rest of us. God bless the hypocrites say I - it is the zealots that cause all the trouble.’
As long as they don’t make it (their hypocrisy) too obvious :)
About the ‘zealots’ ? burn em all at the stake say I - somewhat hypocritically :)
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 12:35 PMRoary, Greenie…
Nitwits. You kids keep grasping at straws
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 12:47 PMand make sure you have plenty of mirrors in the house to admire your good selves. You are so separated from normal, good, religious people, and you only are fed this anti-religious foolishness that you actually believe it!! I can understand a bit how the brownshirts came about reading your spiteful rants.
Of course you have this and this as an example of your secular agenda…
You can look forward to this and this down the line a short way. But at least you’ll be rid of those damn cafflics.....
Tsk, tsk.Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 01:03 PMGregory:Good Popish name that. I was reading on one of the conspiracy sites that MI5 have for long used religion as a cover. The Brits are prattling on about Myanmar that they insist on calling Burma. I bet the first plane full of relief will be full of MI5 agents working for Goal or some other shady crew.
Any woman who would change her religion for a yard of Royal Dick is suspect in my humble opinion.
Posted by on May 20, 2008 @ 06:09 PM
