dong - strange to see even you slipping into being slighty partisan on this one, though it is possibly unintentional.
Ha, you really couldn't be more wrong, I think
all religion is equally stupid, thus any bias that emininates therefrom is equally so. In case you couldn't tell, that link
was posted in irony. Anyone who (seriously) thinks England is a bastion of Catholic bashers is, as suggested by SP, living in a different century to the rest of us.
Tell me why the Act of Settlement never gets repealed then, eh? Tell me why there was such a broohaha in 2006 when people thought Blair was going to convert, possibly while still in office (shock horror), tell me why there was such a strong press and public reaction over Ruth Kelly being a member of Opus Dei.
The establishment likes to express horror about things because they can, and the press will make something out of nothing if they believe it will get punters to cough up. This is because many people are too stupid to understand the difference, some are sufficiently intelligent to realise there really isn't one (committed adherents on sides being essentially, barking) and most, simply couldn't care less.
On the Act(s) of Settlement lets see, there were several;
1662 Settlement Act - passed by the (then protestant) Irish Parliament restored on the return of Charles II not the English Parliament (as a partial reversal of the punitive Cromwellian Settlement Act of 1652 and modified by the Act of Explanation of 1666(4?)). In simple terms it aimed to restore land etc stolen under Cromwell's conquest. Hmm, maybe not that one.
Or, the Act of Settlement 1700 (1701) - Yes, that's the one.
"That all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities."
The main effect it had was (is) to deny Catholics a right of Royal Accession and to be fair it's not
just aimed at Ireland. Tell me, how
exactly does that relate (in any practical sense) to a 21st Century Irish republic, is there an unknown Royal Heir hidden somewhere there?
There have been (rather half hearted I grant you) attempts to repeal it on the entirely valid basis that it's discriminatory. You omitted that bit. I'll grant that a failure to repeal it is evidence of indifference and prevarication, but I'm far from convinced it's
especially compelling evidence of 'viscious' English anti-Catholicism. How about this; the day the Catholic Church decrees the next Pope can be a Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Protestant, we'll discuss it further?
Besides, line up 100 folk at random in England and I'd doubt double digits would even have heard of it, never mind know what it was about, or its relevance today.
On Blair, if you think the
average member of the English public could give more than a tinkers cuss about Blair's religious persuasion you're out of touch, deliberately trying to stir it up, or both. Ruth Kelly could be a satanist for all I care, so long as she doesn't commit crime and does her job competently. Sadly, she failed on both counts, though I don't recall her membership of a small religious sect being a major factor.
Whether you like it or not burning is guy IS symbolic of religious hatred - the fact that the majority of people doing it are unaware of the specific origins in neither here nor there. I don't necessarily belive that "England is a bastion of represed Catholic Bashers" - my personal experience is that the population of England (and Wales, Scotland less so and Nth Ireland not at all) are extremely ignorant of the many crimes over histroy perpetrated against the non-Anglican religions (Presbeterians, Methodist and Jews didn't have it easy at times either). History is taught in British schools with a vicsiously Anglican tilt. I would refer to the English system as being institutionally anti-Catholic - there's nothing repressed about it. The attitude of the general population seems to come from ignorance and one sided history lessons - there is no active malice, but neither is there repression, about the general anti-Catholic prejudices I have encountered - it just seems ingrained. 'Catholics are fair game' is an attitude I have hit over and over again. We should take the derision of our leaders, beliefs, saints and practises on the chin - like the 2000 year old, 1 billion strong religion that we are.
Really, it's symbolic of whatever one wants it to be symbolic of, for you it's clearly anti-Catholic, for some it's anti-traitor, for others it's a reminder of how close they came, and to some (most I'd wager) it's just something they do each November without giving it's sinister connotations much (if any) thought because they're unaware of them. In other words, if you're
looking for bias, it's certain to turn up.
The execution was certainly religiously motivated, but then of course so was the initiating cause - so let's call a spade a spade here. The more accurate question is; that was 400 years ago and occurred during a time of fervant and often violent anti-Catholiism, does that still hold true? I don't think it does.
If people participate in a ritual without realising what it (may) signify, then surely by definition this means they're not doing it as a
conscious anti-Catholic act. If they were, and I have to say, playing devil's advocate a moment; taking the generality of the plot into account, a Catholic terrorist plot to destroy the establishment, one
could argue a little resentment would be justified couldn't one? The fact that most
don't assign such venom today should tell you something, I'd think.
I learned history in England (for the most part), In fact, I went to an Anglican church school, they laid into
all faiths pretty visciously (your word) as I recall. And, let's be fair; at some time or another, all the major players in the religious persecution game deserved pretty much all they got. I agree that history lessons in school can serve a useful purpose only if one takes what is being taught in a broad context and one challenges its premise. If one doesn't do that, it's little more than propoganda.
England
is institutionally Anglican, after al with the head of state being the head of the Anglican church, it could hardly be otherwise, could it? But, saying (that tedious act aside) that makes it institutionally
Anti-catholic isn't entirely, or even particularly accurate, it would be less of a stretch to say it's institutionally
anti-Muslim. By the same argument is the Irish Republic institutionally anti-Protestant (I don't believe it is, but please enlighten us) merely because the Pope is Catholic?
That is my personal experience and my take on a more general problem as I see it. dong, you can do rolly eyes all you like - that doesn't change my experience.
Of course, as I'm speaking from mine. I don't think it's a general problem, I think it's a very specific one. One that's perpetuated by those with a historical axe to grind and one that today a great many (most even) people (in the nation that started it) in all probability neither understand nor care deeply about.
I'm not rolling my eyes in the way you think nor seeking to change your mind. Clearly you have some animis here; this has been evident in a some of your past posts which had a subplot of anti-Britishness. That's fine, you're entitled. But as I said I think the entire concept of
arguing over religion, (and especially over something like the religious significance of Guy Fawkes night) is utter folly, all we will end up with is more division, anger and unnecessary violence by all sides. The last 400 years or more suggests that's a reasonably valid observation.
Let's move on?
I think that's living in the past Manly, I've never come across any Catholic persecution. You can't hark back to the past all the time. You often say that the history we're taught is biased, yet don't seem to realise that the history you read can also be biased.
Boy held after bonfire body find
This is despressing. Not so much because I used to live just by there years ago and I recall the bonfires but that the suspect is 13! Evidence of another dark side to Nov 5th.
