What are you on about?
The point was the archaic belief that the monarch pledges loyalty to the prodestant faith in a what is pretty much a secular country.
Abolishing the monarchy wasn't the slant my post was about it was about the outdated proclamation document.
I can find much better reason if I wanted to argue the abolslisent, something my post wasn't about.
That’s a ridiculous argument. I don’t think anyone is suggesting Charles become King of the Muslims.
Your Protestant faith is Anglican. There are older Protestant faiths out there that could say your religion isn’t true.The protestant faith that I was born into doesn't tell me what to do, your posts are riddled with hyperbole to try to give another excuse why the monarchy shouldn't exist.
It's a dishonest argument.
Thanks for moving the argument randomly on…When was the last time the Protestant faith demanded that you do what they ordered you to do?
MP’s are still asked to take an oath of allegiance to your sovereign who is defender of the faith, so to speak.In their own countries they probably are because they protect the religion they practice, the monarch of this country has a ceremonial role.
In this country however you can be of any denomination and get a seat in the big house where the real power is.
These weeping republicans need to focus because they aren't getting anything out of this any time soon, just watch the telly ann shush would be my advise.
Your Protestant faith is Anglican. There are older Protestant faiths out there that could say your religion isn’t true.
Your faith does tell you what to do. That’s the whole point of it. My wife is a vicar, I probably know more about Anglicanism than the vast majority of people.
Thanks for moving the argument randomly on…
Mixing faith and politics is never good. We only have to look to our mad cousins over the pond to see where it leads.
Yeah I was saying in another thread that I didn't think this was associated with that (plus one guy wasn't actually arrested at all) but it does seem like it might be. Fuck knows. It's not a good look is it.
No, you have read into it something that wasn't there.The protestant faith that I was born into doesn't tell me what to do, your posts are riddled with hyperbole to try to give another excuse why the monarchy shouldn't exist.
It's a dishonest argument.
I haven’t pushed any republican message, I just think we need to modernise in certain areas.I haven't got a faith, I said I was born into one. The fact that I was raised CofE like many other people and then became what can be classed as an apostate it just goes to show just how loosely the faith orders their flock around.
Again, using the religion as an excuse to push a republican message is lazy and deceitful.
MP’s are still asked to take an oath of allegiance to your sovereign who is defender of the faith, so to speak.
If the monarchy and government are so separate and the head of state is purely ceremonial, then why in your unwritten constitution do you still have, in the likes of your Act of Settlement which dates back to 1700, and has had a few amendments along the way, is there still such things as the exclusion of Catholics from succession to the crown. It took up until this century for an amendment allowing the ascension to the throne of a monarch who takes a Catholic as a spouse.
This is part of your parliaments right to regulate succession.
Yet MPs from a nationalist come in NI are asked to pledge an oath to the crown.
Personal I would prefer the likes of Sinn Fein MPs from NI to take their seats in Westminster, but it is very understandable why they do not coming from their background.
Have you ever wondered where this sectarianism comes from. It’s enshrined in your constitution.
I haven’t pushed any republican message, I just think we need to modernise in certain areas.
CofE is becoming much more evangelical. It’s not being seen as of yet, but as traditional congregations die out, the money from the CofE is going into evangelical pots.
It is but by being the head of the CofE, it intrinsically intertwines him with the archaic pledging that politicians and parliament have to uphold.Praise the Lord, sorry mate but I just don't see a groundswell of support for Christianity in my circles, I know your ear is closer to the ground and I respect that.
I would agree that removing the monarch from being the head of the CofE could be a thing, that's another discussion though surely?
It is but by being the head of the CofE, it intrinsically intertwines him with the archaic pledging that politicians and parliament have to uphold.
If the Archbishop of Canterbury became head of the CofE, I don’t think many would complain. Republicans would hail it as progress and the CofE synod could vote for their figurehead.
The church would take a century to agree on a question.Again this would be another discussion and I for one see nothing wrong with the suggestion, as long as it had the will of the people behind it.
Referendum anyone? After all everyone respects the outcome of a referendum don't they? :)
Get your wife involved mate, wives have a way about them that even the big cheese in the clouds would acquiesce to.The church would take a century to agree on a question.
Nah 10 years tops, the question would be too old to molest otherwise.The church would take a century to agree on a question.
I do wonder how high she will go.Get your wife involved mate, wives have a way about them that even the big cheese in the clouds would acquiesce to.
I do wonder how high she will go.
She had 218 people at her service tonight.