God Save the Queen, but the Roman Catholics?

Rob,

That is one of the most ignorant posts that I have read in a long time - and that is saying something. The issue is not whether the pope would agree with a law. The issues are: do the laws coincide with any politician's private, moral stance and how deeply are these morals held? Just because the RC moral teaching is personified in the pope does not mean that those moral teachings have any more sway then the moral stance that is held by any other politician. In fact, it is often the case that those moral teachings are less influential because any institutional belief is, by definition, less personal than a an individually derived belief.

Some Roman Catholics moan that the monarchy is closed to them and declare that this is prejudiced and unfair. Yes, it is prejudiced. No, it is not unfair. The monarch has to give royal assent to all bills in order for them to become law. If the sovereign were Roman, and Parliament passed a law that the Pope did not care for, the the sovereign, who must sign the law or abdicate, is put in an intolerable position. Who does the sovereign obey? Parliament, which is elected by the people, or someone who governs a foreign country, for that is what the Vatican State is. Let the monarch remain the servant of the people and not the servant of some pope. They system has worked quite well for a long time now and it ought to be left alone. And if the Romans do not like it, they can always move to Italy.

Cassandra

Once the House of Lords is no longer by inheritance but by appointment of the prime minister for life peerage based on ummm...contributions in business or whatever, understandable to see seats for sale. I was suprised to see Muslim members in the House of Lords actually, including Lord Ahmed something or the other of Rothmere? Can't remember exactly. Lost his card.

Robin

"Devolution" seems to be going on forever does it not?

But do you and Cassandra think Catholics are discriminated against in the UK as per what the Baroness wrote?

there's mechanisms built into the 1998 Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement to hand Northern Ireland back to Dublin when the majority votes to do so. Given current demographic trends, my guess is there is 30-50 years before that happens. (Ian Paisley will undoubtedly be turning over in his grave when that happens, the bitter anti-Papist that he is). NI has the Legislative Assembly, elections were on the 7th, but London has been running things since the alleged IRA spyring in 2002. Power is scheduled to be devolved on the 26th IF an executive is formed, but at the moment is has not been and given that most of Ireland's (north and south) political players are in the US for the holiday, I wouldn't expect an announcement before next week.

There's a big brohaha in london about selling seats in the parliament (lords). Lord Levy being questioned, etc. And even Tony. Still brewing.
And reading the above pointless bit,one has to ask...how or why was the lady rabbi chonsen to be spokesman for this RC question? Obviously not for the information given...

Fatpie42
You're British!. Lovely. Rare to find one in the On Faith threads.

I know, I know. There is now a seperate Parliament in Northern Ireland, just as in Scotland. The Scots have their own pound too, which are looked at suspiciously by the money changers in my country and flat out rejected to the consternation and frustrations of Scottish visitors.

As for alleged discriminations against Catholics in the UK, I am sceptical too. Your PM's wife, Cherie Blair is a Catholic. PM Tony Blair is a Catholic methinks, except by formal declaration or baptism. He attended the Catholic church with her on Sundays.

There are many Catholic schools in the UK. As always, it is not discriminations but self-incriminations and self-flagellations I noticed, among my Catholic friends. They may not be discriminated against, but they do seem to react defensively about their faith for reasons I don't know as I never ask.

As for Nothern Ireland, it reminds of Kashmir. If it is to become part of India, the Muslim majority would be a minority in Hindu India.

Jihadist, there's a simple reason why we don't give up Northern Ireland. There are people in Northern Ireland who are proud to be British and insist that Northern Ireland remain British. Also, if Northern Ireland were to become just another part of Ireland, the protestant majority there would become a minority. Hardly surprising then, that so many people in Northern Ireland don't want it to become part of the rest of Ireland.

The fact is that the Northern Ireland conflict isn't really a conflict between Ireland and Britain. It's an internal conflict now.

Could we have some examples of this so-called discrimination against Roman Catholics. I won't deny that it exists before hearing your examples, but I won't simply take your word for it when you have not even been able to provide anecdotal evidence.

Nigel,
Had a good sleep? You're drooling.

Ron,
You look really great, but pink is not your colour.

Well, what can I say about Catholics' predicament in UK. And to think it all started with Henry VIII.

The Anglicans and Catholices never seem to get over it? Can't imagine why, with only all that burning at the stakes, beheadings and being stuck in the Tower of London and such for being a Catholic royal or a non-Catholic royal depending on the religious shifts.

As for Northern Ireland, give Ireland back to the Irish. Surely England can do this after giving up India, Malaya, South Africa etc after WWII. Surely England can make do with only the Falklands for strategic sheep reasons as the last of their colonized holdouts?

I look good....

I mean really good....

Hey everyone, come see how good I look!

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

However, Britain is full of strange anachronisms, like the very existence of a House of Lords, not to mention a monarchy.

I also find it absolutely stupefying that you could answer this question the way you did -- in particular referring to the UK as opposed to England -- without once mentioning Northern Ireland.