Baxter Parp Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 No, it's not. No it's not, but they're rarer than hens teeth everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 We're talking about a rather extreme minority here. I don't know why this thread is going on for so long because in the great scheme of things they don't really matter in terms of the independence question. They're just a bunch of neanderthal xenophobic knuckle draggers that only represent a small minority of ignoramuses that cling onto bygone hatred from 300 years ago FFS that they probably know next to nothing about. They just need a vehicle for their hatred. No doubt a minority of that minority actually go to church so can barely call themselves protestant. To talk about protestantism is to talk about a dying religion in this country. And about time too cos it's all a load of balls. Same as pretty much all organised religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The defenders of the faith have aligned themselves with unionism. They state that independence for Scotland is incompatible with protestantism. If you are looking for bizarre, why not try the orange corner? A couple of interesting articles on there, particularly the piece on the CBI, thanks for sharing with a wider audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I wonder how the yes/no ratio would break down between the various religious and non religious self identifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The Prime Minister must also be Protestant due to their role in appointing CoE bishops - you couldn't have a Catholic appointing senior members of the CoE, a Protestant Church. There is no statutory bar against a Catholic becoming Prime Minister, but special arrangements would have to be made to prevent them from advising the Crown on CoE appointments - and of course, there has never been a Catholic (or non-Protestant) Prime Minister to date. This is a total perversion of how the appointments process actually works now. The decision is in essence made entirely by the Church of England. The Prime Minister by constitutional convention does not refuse to recommend to the monarch the recommendation of the Church of England's committee and has not done so only once, under Margaret Thatcher, for non theological reasons and before the relatively recent legislation granting more administrative autonomy to the General Synod. There is also nothing in law which says that a Catholic Prime Minister may not discharge that constitutional function, James Callaghan was nominally Catholic, nor is there anything to distinguish between Catholics and non Anglican communion Protestant churches on this issue. Gordon Brown was no better or worse placed to discharge that constitutional duty of advice than John Major or a hypothetical Catholic. It all goes back to the Act of Settlement, which was extended to cover Scotland by the Acts of Union. The recent reform that freed the monarch to marry a Catholic made no change to the fact that the monarch him/herself must be Protestant. Not actually true. The monarch can be of any religion except a Catholic notwithstanding their function as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Callaghan was Baptist by the time he became Prime Minister. The monarch can be any religion so long as it's Protestant. When the Act of Settlement was being drawn up there was no chance at all of the British monarch ever being Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu (let's face it, there still isn't) so the only faith they felt the need to explicitly proscribe was Catholicism. It still means the same thing now as it did then - the monarch must be Protestant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Callaghan was Baptist by the time he became Prime Minister. Which is still not the same denomination as the Church of England. The monarch can be any religion so long as it's Protestant. When the Act of Settlement was being drawn up there was no chance at all of the British monarch ever being Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu (let's face it, there still isn't) so the only faith they felt the need to explicitly proscribe was Catholicism. It still means the same thing now as it did then - the monarch must be Protestant. There is nothing in law which would prohibit Prince Charles converting to Islam or becoming a Buddhist and still inheriting the throne. Glad we've cleared that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 There is nothing in law which would prohibit Prince Charles converting to Islam or becoming a Buddhist and still inheriting the throne. Glad we've cleared that up. The Act Of Settlement says different. "According to the 1701 Act, succession to the throne went to Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James I's granddaughter) and her Protestant heirs." "Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England. In 2008 it was announced that Peter Philips, son of The Princess Royal, would marry Autumn Kelly. She had been baptised as a Catholic but had been accepted into the Church of England before her marriage. Therefore Peter Phillips retained his place in the line of succession." http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/maryiiwilliamiiiandtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The Act Of Settlement says different. "According to the 1701 Act, succession to the throne went to Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James I's granddaughter) and her Protestant heirs." "Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England. In 2008 it was announced that Peter Philips, son of The Princess Royal, would marry Autumn Kelly. She had been baptised as a Catholic but had been accepted into the Church of England before her marriage. Therefore Peter Phillips retained his place in the line of succession." http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/maryiiwilliamiiiandtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx Except it doesn't say that. Actually read the Act of Settlement. It does not say that you are excluded from succession if you are not a Protestant. It says you are excluded from the line of succession if you "profess the Popish religion" or (until recent amendment) "marry a Papist". The Act of Settlement does not apply any religious test other than to check whether or not you are a Roman Catholic or have married one. It is therefore blind to every single other religion and denomination and those without religion, as long as they are content to take the Coronation Oath (i.e. agree to be in communion with the Church of England; not the same as being a Protestant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Except it doesn't say that. Actually read the Act of Settlement. It does not say that you are excluded from succession if you are not a Protestant. It says you are excluded from the line of succession if you "profess the Popish religion" or (until recent amendment) "marry a Papist". The Act of Settlement does not apply any religious test other than to check whether or not you are a Roman Catholic or have married one. It is therefore blind to every single other religion and denomination and those without religion, as long as they are content to take the Coronation Oath (i.e. agree to be in communion with the Church of England; not the same as being a Protestant). Except it very clearly says "a further Provision to be made for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line for the Happiness of the Nation and the Security of our Religion" "His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants." Not a protestant = no throne. The succession is only open to the protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, not the jewish ones, not the muslim ones. It'd be a bit fucking difficult being the head of the C of E if you're a bloody buddhist for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Except it very clearly says "a further Provision to be made for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line for the Happiness of the Nation and the Security of our Religion" "His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants." Not a protestant = no throne. The succession is only open to the protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, not the jewish ones, not the muslim ones. It'd be a bit fucking difficult being the head of the C of E if you're a bloody buddhist for a start. Well done, you've failed to read what you've quoted. The Act makes provision to attempt to secure the continued succession of the Protestant line to the throne. However it does not exclude, by mere fact of someone being of a religion other than those under the umbrella of Protestantism, any individual from ascending to the throne. It describes the Protestant line as including a number of Royals, all of whom were protestants, stipulating the order of succession. It does not say that if you are not a protestant Heir, you cannot inherit. Had it done so, it would not have been necessary to include a prohibition on those professing the Popish religion or marrying Papists within the Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Well done, you've failed to read what you've quoted. The Act makes provision to attempt to secure the continued succession of the Protestant line to the throne. However it does not exclude, by mere fact of someone being of a religion other than those under the umbrella of Protestantism, any individual from ascending to the throne. It describes the Protestant line as including a number of Royals, all of whom were protestants, stipulating the order of succession. It does not say that if you are not a protestant Heir, you cannot inherit. Had it done so, it would not have been necessary to include a prohibition on those professing the Popish religion or marrying Papists within the Act. For f**k sake, you ignorant twat. "Faced with the evidence he was wrong, Libby simply closed his eyes, put his head down and blundered on" "According to the 1701 Act, succession to the throne went to Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James I's granddaughter) and her Protestant heirs. However, Sophia died before Queen Anne, therefore the succession passed to her son, George, Elector of Hanover, who in 1714 became King George I. The act was later extended to Scotland as a result of the Treaty of Union enacted in the Acts of Union of 1707. The Act also laid down the conditions under which alone the Crown could be held. No Roman Catholic, nor anyone married to a Roman Catholic, could hold the English Crown. The Sovereign now had to swear to maintain the Church of England (and after 1707, the Church of Scotland). Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England." http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/maryiiwilliamiiiandtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx Not muslims, not jews, not buddhists, not mormons but C of E. Please shut your stupid trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 He doesn't half talk some pish. Thread should get back to the Orange Order. Any further news? More arrests? Were the two groups who were fighting when the lassie got bottled from the "same side", so to speak? Rival lodges, or rather, their rival attendant young teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 For f**k sake, you ignorant twat. "Faced with the evidence he was wrong, Libby simply closed his eyes, put his head down and blundered on" "According to the 1701 Act, succession to the throne went to Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James I's granddaughter) and her Protestant heirs. However, Sophia died before Queen Anne, therefore the succession passed to her son, George, Elector of Hanover, who in 1714 became King George I. The act was later extended to Scotland as a result of the Treaty of Union enacted in the Acts of Union of 1707. The Act also laid down the conditions under which alone the Crown could be held. No Roman Catholic, nor anyone married to a Roman Catholic, could hold the English Crown. The Sovereign now had to swear to maintain the Church of England (and after 1707, the Church of Scotland). Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England." http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/maryiiwilliamiiiandtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx Not muslims, not jews, not buddhists, not mormons but C of E. Please shut your stupid trap. You can be in communion with the Church of England while also being Jewish, a Muslim or a Buddhist. There is nothing, per se, about being a member of the Church of England or part of the wider Anglican communion, that prohibits you from being a non-Catholic believer in another religion. Indeed, if the question of being "in communion with the Church of England" is at issue, technically the Oath undertaken by the monarch with respect to Scotland is in and of itself incompatible with being the monarch, since it entails the monarch being an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. Indeed, the Queen is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is, of course, a denomination which is not in communion with the Church of England. The Scottish Episcopal Church is. There was a rather big stooshie about this in the 18th century when James attempted to thrust episcopacy back onto the Scottish national church in defiance of the protections connected to the implementing Acts of Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 "The Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, that is, a full, confirmed member." http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx --- You can't be a full confirmed member of a Protestant Church if you are a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or anything other than a Protestant. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken. 'Cos you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 "The Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, that is, a full, confirmed member." http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx --- You can't be a full confirmed member of a Protestant Church if you are a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or anything other than a Protestant. I bessech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken. 'Cos you are. Yes you can be a confirmed member of the Church of England if you are a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Jew. It is simply incorrect to say that the two are incompatible. If you choose to become a member after being one of these things, you will be required to renounce previous religious beliefs. Sure. But there is nothing, per se, to stop you adopting those beliefs subsequently, which would per se lead to the undoing or withdrawal of your confirmation. If Prince Charles recites "La ilaha illallah, Muhammadur rasulullah" and goes to a Mosque to have his being taken into Islam recognised by an Immam, he will not by those facts alone cease to be a full confirmed member of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. He will not cease to be eligible to become King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Yes you can be a confirmed member of the Church of England if you are a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Jew ... which would, per se, lead to the undoing or withdrawal of your confirmation. Is this self-parody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Is this self-parody? You've failed to read the full sentence. There is "nothing" "which would..." If Prince Charles goes to a Mosque tomorrow and declares there to be no God but Allah and is welcomed into the Islamic faith by an Immam, he does not cease to be a confirmed member of the Church of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 They may be on the same side of this debate, but they likely disagree with almost everything else. It's not surprising that reasonable No voters and campaigners are unhappy with bigots like the Orange Order getting involved. There are no reasonable no voters, they are all lap dogs to the oppressors and colonisers. Anyone supporting the Union cannot count themselves as Scottish and should be ashamed of their views. It's why very few people admit to voting no in public. It's akin to admitting you steal underwear from lines or fondle grannies on the bus. The Orange Lodge is the epitome of the no campaign; out dated, hated and vehemently racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Is this self-parody? It's turned out that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.