Bloody Fireworks.

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Let's move on?

Certainly - but I do feel the need to answer a couple of points first.

In case you couldn't tell, that link was posted in irony.

*falls down and dies* Irony?? - you are shitting me! :rolleyes::wink:

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?

What's this got to do with Ireland? I never mentioned Ireland. Easy tiger - just as you may discuss Ireland without reference the UK, I may discuss the UK without referencing Ireland.

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?

As far as I know the Pope can be from any background whatsoever. No one is disbarred from being Pope - there is a slightly stricter qualifying process that does require the Pontif have demonstrated his* abilities and dedication to the Church - but that is not to say he had to be raised Catholic. It's not the same - the potential head of the Anglican religion should of course be an Anglican, same as the Pope should be a Catholic. But the former is disbarred from being married to a Catholic or having been a Catholic in the past.

* you would have done better using the Pope can't be a woman argument - not quite as directly related, but you'd have shut me up -cos I'm very much in a grey area with that one

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.

In my experience, those who know about it do assign some venom to it, yes. More often in the form of dark humour than outright attack - but that should tell you something, I'd think.

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?

The Head of State in Ireland is the President, there is no state religion. The Pope has no constitutional or political say over the Republic of Ireland. It is called a Republic for a reason. True - it wasn't always that way and Ireland was a poorer place for it. I am a strong believer in the separation of religion and state and Ireland is a good example of why.

So your argument doesn't stand. Ireland, when it was Catholic Ireland, made an extreme effort not to be anti-Protestant - our first true President was a Protestant (Hyde, 1938), chosen partly as a symbol of that intent.


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.

I freely admit to arguing as you say. It is something that is often let lie and I don't like that. I'm never duplicitous about it though. I am what I am.

Bollix! Arguing over religion is a natural as making babies - and nearly as necessary...
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Certainly - but I do feel the need to answer a couple of points first.

Of course.

*falls down and dies* Irony?? - you are shitting me! :rolleyes::wink:

Just checking, you know the one about assumptions, right.

What's this got to do with Ireland? I never mentioned Ireland. Easy tiger - just as you may discuss Ireland without reference the UK, I may discuss the UK without referencing Ireland.

No you didn't. But you being Irish I thought I'd be nice. But mainly because it was another Act of Settlement that had overtly religious overtones. Note that I'd concluded (correctly?) that it wasn't the relevant one.

As far as I know the Pope can be from any background whatsoever. No one is disbarred from being Pope - there is a slightly stricter qualifying process that does require the Pontif have demonstrated his* abilities and dedication to the Church - but that is not to say he had to be raised Catholic. It's not the same - the potential head of the Anglican religion should of course be an Anglican, same as the Pope should be a Catholic. But the former is disbarred from being married to a Catholic or having been a Catholic in the past.

It is a rather unbalanced bias isn't it? I checked after and yes, technically a non catholic could be elected Pope, on the assumption they would immediately convert. Rather unlikely however, I'd suspect.

* you would have done better using the Pope can't be a woman argument - not quite as directly related, but you'd have shut me up -cos I'm very much in a grey area with that one

Why's that?

In my experience, those who know about it do assign some venom to it, yes. More often in the form of dark humour than outright attack - but that should tell you something, I'd think.

I didn't say it's unheard of, merely not endemic in the way you asserted. I know about and there's no venom from me. It tells me that generalisation based on personal experience is risky, so there. Though naturally, we all do it.:smile:

The Head of State in Ireland is the President, there is no state religion. The Pope has no constitutional or political say over the Republic of Ireland. It is called a Republic for a reason. True - it wasn't always that way and Ireland was a poorer place for it. I am a strong believer in the separation of religion and state and Ireland is a good example of why.

Agreed but the De Facto national religion is Catholicism, as the De Facto national language of the US is English. Legislating otherwise won't change that.

So your argument doesn't stand. Ireland, when it was Catholic Ireland, made an extreme effort not to be anti-Protestant - our first true President was a Protestant (Hyde, 1938), chosen partly as a symbol of that intent.

Last time I checked the republic is about 97% Catholic. Let's not delude ourselves shall we. Can you say, hand on heart that there is no anti-Protestant sentiment in the republic - Is it any more or less overt and institutional than anti-Catholism in England?

Separation of church and state doesn't address or obviate religious division, it merely re-locates it.

I freely admit to arguing as you say. It is something that is often let lie and I don't like that. I'm never duplicitous about it though. I am what I am.

Like I say, you may have cause. I care about predjudice, I don't care about religion,other than as I said to consider them all bonkers.

Bollix! Arguing over religion is a natural as making babies - and nearly as necessary...

And about as likely to end in tears.