Well done, Prince Charles !

icebreaker

icebreaker

At the Start
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,957
Good for you, Charles !
'Bout time someone talked about it. For too long it is the unspoken -- but well known -- truth.
You have the balls to speak the facts which too many people of influence have been afraid to articulate.
I salute you, sir.
 
He wasn't specifying just ISIS, tho'. I think he was drawing attention to the travails suffered daily by the Christian minority in middle-eastern Muslim countries in general.
And that issue, without doubt, is often airbrushed over by an element of the liberal Left.
 
aren't Christians going to be piSSed on by anybody though?..the old turn the other cheek etc is a bit soft for these hard religious times..hard to to do when some tw@t has cut it off

Christians need to grow a pair if they want to compete with other religions in the religions olympics?..start taking drugs..killing indescrimately etc

religionin is a competitive game these days..get up to it or pack the game in and just accept we just die and thats it and leave the religious nuts to kill each other

If i was religious i certainly wouldn't choose being a christian..i'd want a hard faith that lets me kill someone that wants my head off.

Christianin is a mugs game imo
 
Last edited:
Charles is a fukcing hypocrite, given he's very close to the centre of institutionalised anti-Catholicism.
 
EC1 said:
aren't Christians going to be piSSed on by anybody though?..the old turn the other cheek etc is a bit soft for these hard religious times..hard to to do when some tw@t has cut it off

Christians need to grow a pair if they want to compete with other religions in the religions olympics?..start taking drugs..killing indescrimately etc

religionin is a competitive game these days..get up to it or pack the game in and just accept we just die and thats it and leave the religious nuts to kill each other

If i was religious i certainly wouldn't choose being a christian..i'd want a hard faith that lets me kill someone that wants my head off.

Christianin is a mugs game imo
Click to expand...
Heh, could be right ............. this game calls for a proper flat track bully, maybe.
(I'm thinking that D.O.'s comment is too contemptible to merit a reply. Benefit of the doubt; he's probably been at the Glenfiddich again. Get a grip, dear boy.) :ninja:
 
icebreaker said:
Heh, could be right ............. this game calls for a proper flat track bully, maybe.
(I'm thinking that D.O.'s comment is too contemptible to merit a reply. Benefit of the doubt; he's probably been at the Glenfiddich again. Get a grip, dear boy.) :ninja:
Click to expand...

I haven't seen what Chas said (just extrapolating from Chroniclandlord's post) but if he's criticising religious intolerance, then he's a hypocrite. I'll rescind the remark if he fulfils Nostradamus's reported prophecy that the English monarchy will end when he becomes king. (Maybe he won't become king and whichever Charles R Nostradamus mentioned is still some way down the line.)

(Stands back and awaits the inevitable flurry of posts of abuse from the usual gang.)
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
I'll rescind the remark if he fulfils Nostradamus's reported prophecy that the English monarchy will end when he becomes king.
Click to expand...
:blink:

No, I think you have to rescind the remark if you cannot provide real-world examples of "institutionalised anti-Catholicism" at the centre of the U.K. body-politic.
Are there state-authorised beheadings, crucifixions, rapings of Catholics going on somewhere in England's fair land that I haven't heard about?
 
There aren't beheadings etc as you well know. But a Catholic cannot be monarch or even - in practice if not in law - Prime Minister.

But Catholics still struggle to get into certain professions and face other difficulties - like being murdered walking down the street just for being one.

My niece was told by her Law professor that she would struggle to get a job as a lawyer because of her religion. That was only a few years ago. She struggled to get a job to begin with and ended up having to work for the Scottish Office Legal department before eventually getting a job as a lawyer with the local authority. She could tell you plenty about a very prominent senior Scottish lawyer and his [alleged] anti-Catholic agenda.

I was once told in private my promotion was blocked by someone in a position of influence because of my religion. I was told that in confidence by someone close to the person (who was disgusted). I reckon since it was 30 years ago the stature of limitations would be up on that confidence and the person who told me is no longer with us.

Obviously we aren't comparing apples with apples in terms of what IS is trying to achieve but if the principle of religious intolerance is what's being discussed [as opposed to individual manifestations of how it is carried out] then Britain isn't just an anti-Catholic society, it's largely anti-everybody-who's-not-WASP. Hence my assertion that Charles is being a hypocrite since he is close to the heart of it all.

But this is all likely to turn sour so I've said my piece and will add no more.
 
Desert Orchid said:
She struggled to get a job to begin with and ended up having to work for the Scottish Office Legal department before eventually getting a job as a lawyer with the local authority.
Click to expand...
But this just emphasizes the polar opposite of your claim.
(If there was institutionalised ant-Catholic discrimination, then, how come she got a job with the Scottish Office and subsequently the Local Authority -- both at the heart of state institution)?

The rest of your post is anecdotal, I'm afraid. And all of it down to the bias and bigotry of individuals. Certainly not state sanctioned.
 
icebreaker said:
(If there was institutionalised ant-Catholic discrimination, then, how come she got a job with the Scottish Office and subsequently the Local Authority -- both at the heart of state institution)?
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's a well known "fact" that if you are not a Catholic, there's no point in applying for a job with a local authority in West Central Scotland, because of the pro-Catholic bias evident in how their recruiting policies are actioned.

But I daresay Charles had **** all to do with that either.
 
simmo said:
Indeed, it's a well known "fact" that if you are not a Catholic, there's no point in applying for a job with a local authority in West Central Scotland, because of the pro-Catholic bias evident in how their recruiting policies are actioned.
Click to expand...

What can I say, simmo? Catholics feel the opposite. They feel it is pointless applying for a job. My niece was offered her job at the Scottish Office in Edinburgh where anti-Catholicism isn't as rife. She got her job with the LA on the basis of having worked in Edinburgh, so was presumed not to be a Catholic (religion being mentioned in the application or interview). She got that interview on the basis of her psychometric test results and was told she was the only one whose profile fitted their requirements. She's the only Catholic I know who works for the local authority. She says she is the only one she knows of in her department.

There was maybe a stage somewhere between 1985 and 1995 where certain Catholics within the Labour Party in west-central Scotland (but nowhere else) had some influence but they were ousted over time to the point where the current incumbents are believed [within the Catholic community] to have strong anti-Catholic agenda.

But this is like the racism argument/debate. You probably need to be on the receiving end of it to understand how rife it is.

But best this thread gets back to talking about Charles.
 
icebreaker said:
:blink:

rapings of Catholics going on somewhere in England's fair land that I haven't heard about?
Click to expand...

I've heard of an institution that rapes catholics. I'm trying to think what they're called though? Oh... I think it's called the Church of Rome.

To be honest, the catholic church should think itself lucky that it hasn't been made illegal such is the scale of abuse its been systematically handing out over decades. If it were a ring of sex offenders it would have been hunted down to extinction with its leaders locked away (unless they're well connected to the government of course). It's probably the single biggest child sex abuse ring in the world I'd have thought. Occasionally it says "sorry" though, as if that makes it OK

Incidentally, Nostradamus has also predicted the imminent collapse of the Vatican and the flight of the Pope from Rome as it falls to an invasion of the crescent from North Africa. The invasion sweeps across central Europe gathering up followers living from within us, but is eventally checked somewhere in northenr France when the new world comes to our aid. Britain doesn't get too involved according to Nostradamus and has to fight a civil war which sees control of the country change hands seven times before the cross is restored and the crescent cast out

My biggets regret about Prince Charles's intervention in this sphere is that he's using something so palpably unproven to demarcate and in doing so helps legitimise a drift to war. I tend to believe that a world war three is inevitable on the current direction of travel, but I'd rather him call the radical interpretation of islam as fascist. I'd probably feel more comfortable fighting against a political philosophy than yet another stupid religion (as if religion hasn't done enough damage)
 
The suggestion that there is institutionalised anti-Catholic bias in the UK is utter drivel.

The position of the Monarchy is an anachronistic curiosity that no-one can be bothered to address, because no-one in the 21st Century actually think it matters a toss. Regardless, it's hardly an act of oppression anyway. As for politics, Catholics are free to join political parties of any persuasion, and permitted to run for public office. Indeed, Catholics cannot be discriminated against in any way, in the UK.

Just because some narrow-minded bigots hold such a worldview - and some of those people are going to be in positions of influence - doesn't mean there is an institutional bias........it just means some people are horrible ar*seholes.

I find the fact that you actually believe any of this nonsense faintly bizarre, I have to say.
 
Last edited:
The idea that there is an anti Catholic bias across the uk is nothing short of paranoia. Completely ridiculous.

Warbler. Do you really need proof that Muslims are in many states across the world persecuting Christians? Every Muslim can practice their religion with freedom in Christian states but other way round? You must be joking. Have you really not seen the abuse of the so called blashphemy laws in Pakistan for instance? Ever head of isis?
 
Since when can a catholic not "in practice" be prime minister? I thought tony Blair converted or something? We could well have a Jewish prime minister soon. Has that been raised as an issue? Has it fck

unbelievable
 
People have surprisingly asked me if I'm a catholic or not a few times over the years. I've no idea why, I lost my virginity a long time ago and have no allegiance to the catholic church. :)

I think anybody from any religion will be a bit discriminated. I'm sure if you worked for Opus Dei or some other powerful organisation you'd be fine, whereas the lower down the ladder you get, the more your likely to get a few bad looks....

I think we live in a massively discriminative society, not just in relation to catholics or any other group.
For years we persuaded ourselves the biggie's were colour of skin and sexuality.
Now if you say words that people can't relate to, drive a car that looks worse than someone else, wear clothes that people don't agree with, you'll be discriminated against in some way.
Hey, even if you don't reside in some posh part of London and live in a mining village people might judge you on that.
You only need look at these schizo Halloween outfits which are a grotesque representation of people with mental illness to know that discrimination is part of our DNA.

If there is a god, I like the phrase 'only he can judge'.
 
Last edited:
Marble . You are wrong. I have never been asked about religous affiliation at any time ever. So how would they know whether to discriminate?
 
The advice given to UK employers on this matter during interviews is strong, clear and consistent; on no account should a candidate be questioned about their ethnicity, race or religion.
 
clivex said:
Marble . You are wrong. I have never been asked about religous affiliation at any time ever. So how would they know whether to discriminate?
Click to expand...
What are you on about Clivex?
I am making a general comment that people have asked me personally whether I am a catholic. This has happened in day to day life not necessarily a work environment. I am obviously not speaking for you am I?
Nor am I suggesting that this is some sort of discrimination, probably just curiosity.
The rest of my post was more on a tangent, and not so much about religion, but how we as society are often discriminating, (based on factors other than race, gender or religious orientation), without being able to recognise this and then correct some of our thinking.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
The idea that there is an anti Catholic bias across the uk is nothing short of paranoia. Completely ridiculous.

Warbler. Do you really need proof that Muslims are in many states across the world persecuting Christians? Every Muslim can practice their religion with freedom in Christian states but other way round? You must be joking. Have you really not seen the abuse of the so called blashphemy laws in Pakistan for instance? Ever head of isis?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that Desert Orchird is creating another paranoid round of excuses Clive to explain other issues, but your other observation leaves me a bit non-plused. Are you sure you haven't written out a response in expectation of what you thought you'd read rather than what I wrote?

I think it's well documented that Christians are the most persecuted religion on the planet largely because of Islamic state run religions. Ironically of course, Charles could have paid a special complement to Saddam Hussein as a leading secular light in so much as not only did he deal with Islamists, he also allowed Christians to hold high office in his Iraq, notably Tariq Aziz

I'd prefer not to see this as a religious entity though as it legitmises the whole concept of religion and by extension the existance of a God creature. Last time I checked at least, God's existance had not been proven, and until it is, I'll hold that position. Both groups have no legitimacy therefore in my world view, but I can see it through the prism of a psuedo philosophical stance. IS are a fascist state that is a danger and needs crushing. Islam is a flag that the deluded rally round (we have our own fundamentalists of course in christianity, albeit we tend to associate them with cults in the US and white pointy hats).

This is really about two different culture belief sets and world views. So far as I can see its about good and bad, but we also need to realise that our own portrayal of ourselves as 'good' doesn't come without plenty of contradictions (ironically the catholic church has been one of history's bigger offenders) but where as they might have wielded the historic influence they've largely been replaced today by the multi national
 
You really think that charles, or anyone, is going to give a "special compliment" to saddam Hussein?

ok I maybe misread your post or fell asleep half way through. Yes. I do agree with the first part most emphatically :)

i think that comparing multi nationals to isis is just a bit extreme though? I don't recall apple beheading those that bought Samsung mobiles or Sony laptops
 
Last edited:
I was comparing multi nationals to the catholic church in that they once owned huge swathes of land (still do) operate globally (still do) and are able to exert a terrific amount of influence over people and governments (still can) whilst seemingly flouting all sorts of laws and moral decency whilst they gouge themselves in personal riches. For crying out loud, the head of the church thought nothing of bubbling up pro democracy campaigners and sympathisers to a right wing military junta who then 'disappeared' them in Argentina

I think I'm right in saying that the catholic church in ireland has only recently apologised for selecting girls who they thought to be at risk of developing low moral standards (takes one to know one) and holding them in quasi prisons whilst they were treated as personal slaves by the nuns (this happened as recently as the 1970's I seem to think - or was it even more recent?). This is called kidnap and false imprisonment in any other language. Where is the people's government in all this though that is supposed to protect the people against these kind of clear abuses? Well they're hand in glove with it of course.

The catholic church incidentally have had plenty of beheadings and executions carried out in its name or by those which it has endorsed and encouraged. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition either. The role of multi nationals is only really distinguished by the mode of death they visit on people and the identity of the clients they contract it through. Shell think nothing of paying dodgy local police forces to shoot dead environmental campaigners in Nigeria (they did say sorry though) there is a theme here isn't there? Sometime I'm hoping people might turn round and say that actually, sorry ain't good enough

Actually the list is endless and I'm not even going to bother rattling off a list of MNE abuses, but the worst offenders tend to be in energy, mineral extraction, chemicals, and food chain supply. Banks of course aren't averse to immoral funding decisions either which will result in death and hardship elsewhere. I remember a Goldmans trader without any sense of irony explaining on BBC once why they'd maxed out a position and sold because they feared "for the threat posed by an end to the civil in Libya and outbreak of democracy in Nigeria".

That's where I draw the paralell with the catholic church. Once upon a time they were in a position to make such decisions in the knowledge that people suffered terribly whilst fat cat cardinals profited. The influence of the church has of course declined with the advance of science and a more sceptical society that is increasingly saying, you know what, you're God don't exist, and therefore you can't provide anything for me, I no longer need to take any notice of you. The all pervasive roll of outside regulator that the church used to perform (apologists might call it stabalising) has now fallen to the new providers, the MNE, who are just as capable of abusing it
 
Back
Top