Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted October 28, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 28, 2011 Fair enough. But the PM analogy is a bit off in that it's specifically being that one level further removed that makes it so irrelevant to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Fair enough. But the PM analogy is a bit off in that it's specifically being that one level further removed that makes it so irrelevant to me. Not that much. IIRC the Prime Minister cannot be a Catholic either. One of the reasons Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after he left office and that were Ian Duncan Smith as Conservative leader were to have won a General Election there might have been a constitutional crises (of course there was pretty much no chance of IDS getting into that position). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 It's rooting out instutionalised sexism and religious discrimination at the highest level of our society. It doesn't sway my conviction that, since God didn't put them there, the Royal Family shouldn't have their role but, given that they do, I prefer that it's at least not buffetted by discrimination. Fair play on the sexism bit but, considering the head of the royal family is the head of a specific religion, it's silly to expect religious equality there. It doesn't make any sense for the reasons Kenny pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted October 28, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 28, 2011 Fair play on the sexism bit but, considering the head of the royal family is the head of a specific religion, it's silly to expect religious equality there. It doesn't make any sense for the reasons Kenny pointed out. What would be the difference between Catholicism and any other religion, though? There's no legislation barring any other religion. Or is it purely that you can't have the spouse of the head of the English Church being in thrawl to another man who is head of another religion? What about buddhists with the Dalai Lama etc? Â Actually, doesn't the fact that the Queen is head of her own religion really underline how hokey it is? One king wants a divorce, the Pope won't grant it, so he takes advantage of frustration amongst elements of the populace at the selling of pardons etc and declares his own religion the true one. And 450 years later people still sign up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Fair play on the sexism bit but, considering the head of the royal family is the head of a specific religion, it's silly to expect religious equality there. It doesn't make any sense for the reasons Kenny pointed out. What would be the difference between Catholicism and any other religion, though? There's no legislation barring any other religion. Or is it purely that you can't have the spouse of the head of the English Church being in thrawl to another man who is head of another religion? What about buddhists with the Dalai Lama etc? Kenny's explained why it doesn't work with Catholicism -- because the only possible outcomes of such a union are either A) the Catholic half of the marriage neglecting their Catholic duties by failing to raise their children in that faith, or B) the offspring, upon taking the throne, is somehow simultaneously a Catholic and Head of the C of E. Edited October 28, 2011 by King Pitcos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted October 28, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 28, 2011 See what you mean. Â All the same, that's dependent on the individual being ultra stringent in how they apply their Catholicism. It should be for the individual to say "Sorry, I can't marry you because ..." rather than be told "You're going to be excluded because you're a Catholic." I'm sure there are plenty of nominal Catholics who break the rules every day; my other half has eaten meat in every meal today in spite of having recently been told that meat's a no-no on Fridays. Â And going back to the point about Catholicism being singled out: We don't say "CofE-ers can marry the monarch subject to having proven that their hymen is intact" because otherwise they would be in violation of the no-sex-before-marriage demand of their religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument. Edited October 29, 2011 by JNLister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.  The lass who is 2 down from the UKIP bloke is fit, mind  Terribly irrelevant , but it made the whole thing watchable as the Treasurer was being shot down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrAzY Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 That was painful to watch haha. I think its ok for him to hold that view but he should at least be able to back it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzfan Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument. Â Bless, Diet-BNP actually think they're real politicians, don't they? Silly buggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument. Can you name some of the posters on this board and their style of argument that he is paying tribute to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 29, 2011 I'd say it's a blend of Duane's "I'm just putting some information out there for you to think about" and HappHazard's mix of very strongly held beliefs interspersed with incredibly basic questions that show he's done no research whatsoever, followed by a change of subject. Â To be fair, Duane does at least name "sources", crackpot or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Boo, I was hoping for a "I can't be bothered to remember them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted October 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 29, 2011 That is a fantastic clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 29, 2011 Boo, I was hoping for a "I can't be bothered to remember them". Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts