Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Husky]

< See especially the relevant last post on the previous page.





I think this following topic may well have been brought up before, but it can't harm to parrot it again:



1.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/529227.stm

Catholic monarchy ban 'to continue'

Saturday, 20 November, [color="#FF0000"]1999[/color], 05:10 GMT





2. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4265377.stm

Monday, 14 February, [color="#FF0000"]2005[/color], 17:54 GMT

Call to allow Catholic monarchy



The cardinal wants Catholics to be allowed to marry royalty



The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has called for Catholics to be allowed to rise to the monarchy.

[color="#800080"](Of course he would. He's catholic.)[/color]

3. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7841414.stm

21 [color="#FF0000"]January 2009[/color]

Fresh bid to reform monarchy law

Autumn Kelly gave up her Catholic faith before marrying Peter Phillips

A fresh attempt is to be made to reform a 308-year-old law which bars the monarch from marrying a Catholic.



[color="#800080"][Photo caption:][/color] Autumn Kelly gave up her Catholic faith before marrying Peter Phillips

4. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7966987.stm

00:54 GMT, Friday, 27 [color="#FF0000"]March 2009[/color]

Why the monarchy [color="#FF0000"]discriminates[/color]

[color="#800080"](Sadly, this particular discriminatory practice of Britian is not at all in Bharatam's interest to bring up at the UNHRC/UN-Human-Rights-Commission. Although it would spell doom and gloom for "anglican" britain, it would have a nasty fallout in Bharatam. Imagine: UK is bad for Dharmics in India. Catholicism is bad for Dharmics in India. Imagine a catholic UK. Aaaaah.)[/color]

By Nicholas Witchell

Royal correspondent, BBC News



There have been high-level discussions about reforming the rules of succession.



A BBC poll shows overwhelming public support for changes to the rules of succession to the British throne.



[...]

But why does the current law discriminate against women and Roman Catholics?

The monarchy in Britain is an ancient institution which, for more than a thousand years, has been dominated by men.

[...]

How surprising then in this 21st Century, when sexual equality is a legally enforceable rule in most walks of our national life, to find that when it comes to the rules of succession to the British throne, women are the victims of the most blatant [color="#FF0000"]discrimination[/color].



Put simply, a woman can only become Britain's head of state as a last resort; in effect, after every other male option has been exhausted.



[...]

Ecclesiastical worms



[color="#FF0000"]The other great disadvantage, other than to be female, is to be anything other than a Protestant, or to fall in love with someone who is a Roman Catholic.[/color]



To discover the origins of this particular rule one has to go back to the Bill of Rights of 1688, in which one finds that, in the language of the time:

"All and every person… who shall professe the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the crowne and government of this realme and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging…."

So translating this 300-year-old declaration, which was later ratified in the Act of Settlement of 1701, into the language of the 21st Century, we find that [color="#FF0000"]Roman Catholics and those who marry Roman Catholics are excluded from the British throne.[/color]



[color="#800080"][Photo caption:][/color] "Would Britain be prepared to accept a King whose Queen Consort owed at least part of her allegiance to the Pope"

- PM and Palace 'discussed reform'



The situation is of course made more complicated by the fact that in England, but not in any other part of the United Kingdom, there is an official or established church: the Church of England, of which the monarch is the Supreme Governor - but not the "Head" as is frequently misreported.



But while it would unquestionably open a can of ecclesiastical worms to suggest that the British monarch should be anything other than a member of the Anglican church, is it really necessary any longer to insist that the sovereign cannot marry a fellow Christian who happens to be in communion with Rome rather than Canterbury?



[color="#FF0000"]Yet it is that potential connection with Rome that is the nub of the problem.[/color] And, perhaps surprisingly, the issue is not simply a question of faith. There is, after all, nothing to stop the heir to the throne marrying a non-Christian. It is a question of loyalty.



[color="#FF0000"]Would Britain be prepared to accept a King whose Queen Consort owed at least part of her allegiance to the Pope, and who might consequently insist that their children were brought up as Roman Catholics? The same question would arise in the case of a Queen Regnant whose husband was a Roman Catholic.[/color]



[color="#800080"](See, the British *aren't* stupid. They know catholicism well. First-hand. Ugly history there.

Well, I should say: British weren't suicidally stupid in the past. Don't know about today.)[/color]

Catholicism keeps trying. One day it may succeed.*

In the past, Anglican Britain knew to be scared - was very scared, and rightly so - to let a catholic marry its way near/into the throne. Because they knew - as Hindus now ought to know - what would happen. It's what's *always* happened. See Antonia Maino and kids. And then read the red bits above again.

Besides, catholics were known to be treacherous terrorists even by the Anglicans: the papists (i.e. catholics) famously tried to blow up the British Parliament in order to forcibly reconvert the nation back into papism.



Hindus should have had something in our Constitution of the same sort: christoislamicommunists and those who marry into them absolutely forbidden - even by proxy - from ruling the Indian nation. But India is the only country so foolishly secular as to not come up with something like that in pre-emptive defence. All we had is that aliens cannot rule India and even that has been so easily bypassed.





* 5. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967142.stm

17:11 GMT, Friday, 27 [color="#FF0000"]March 2009[/color]

BBC POLL: THE PUBLIC SPEAKS

Equal rights for royal women? - 89% yes

Heir allowed to marry Catholic? - 81% yes

[color="#800080"](Though I'm sure the catholic readership of BBC would have come out in full force to answer that one.)[/color]

British monarchy to continue? - 76% yes

1,000 people polled by ICM Research, 20-22 March 2009