the wizard Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 How can we tolerate discrimination in the act of succession? 'cos its totally totally racist, when a catholic or a woman can't be queen. We wouldn't tolerate it in any other walk of life. When I heard the 'expert' on BBC breakfast asking this question I thought he, and the presenters who seemed to agree with him, raised a very good point. So my question is, why are we surrounded, governed, dominated by idiots like this? Why do we tolerate people who are this stupid? Does he really believe that a law allowing one single individual to have absolute power would be somehow 'more fair' if that person was allowed to be Muslim? How thick is the MP that he claims is supporting him? Can he spell his own name? Tie his own shoes? Or is he really so super smart that I can't see that this is part of some secret master plan to take over the world or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I have a better idea - scrap the monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 How can we tolerate discrimination in the act of succession? Orwellian doublespeak again,read the instruction manual. Roman emperors have a habit of exalting themselves above god,and persecuting people that won't toe the line. We don't have that yet,but an attempt is being made. The templars have a prophecy that the antichrist will be crowned upon the bethel stone,we don't know who it is yet,but it looks like the groundwork is being laid. The war on terror is supposed to last 27 years.Given that the papacy has already announced the aliens are coming,it looks like this particular conflict started in 1990.The 10 regions all having similtaneous completion dates of 2010 would seem to bear this out. If the start of the war on terror can be construed as 2001,that will take us through to 2028,and apophis is due to hit in 2035/2036. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I have a better idea - scrap the monarchy. I agree with you on that, in principle, but what would be a better replacement? Do you fancy a President Blair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 How can we tolerate discrimination in the act of succession?'cos its totally totally racist, when a catholic or a woman can't be queen. Do you consider 'women' to be a race? Or Catholicism to be anything other than a religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I agree with you on that, in principle, but what would be a better replacement?Do you fancy a President Blair? Or President Major. Or President Brown. Three huge reasons to keep the monarchy. I don't agree with the second ranking of women. This made sense when the monarch was actually fighting battles but not these days when all they have to do is smile and wave. The ban on Catholics is necessary because of the current status of the Anglican church. However I would get rid of this link between church and state as it does neither any favour, and if that happens then there is no need for a ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Or President Major.Or President Brown. Three huge reasons to keep the monarchy. I don't agree with the second ranking of women. This made sense when the monarch was actually fighting battles but not these days when all they have to do is smile and wave. The ban on Catholics is necessary because of the current status of the Anglican church. However I would get rid of this link between church and state as it does neither any favour, and if that happens then there is no need for a ban. I'd vote for a president Major - I thought he was a decent man, and, thankfully not a politician with 'visions' like blair. Or a dud like brown. Brown would be unelectable as pres, and prince charles would only be a long shot if he had to get in on a popular mandate - which is sort of the point of it - we, the peoople could choose the head of state - for the first time ever in these islands (AFAIK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Or President Major.Or President Brown. Three huge reasons to keep the monarchy. I don't agree with the second ranking of women. This made sense when the monarch was actually fighting battles but not these days when all they have to do is smile and wave. The ban on Catholics is necessary because of the current status of the Anglican church. However I would get rid of this link between church and state as it does neither any favour, and if that happens then there is no need for a ban. Thankyou for your polite reply! I think I'd rather have a Queen Anne than a King Charles, but that's just my personal preference! She seems to have "her head screwed on just right!", like her mum! Sharp woman! Bloody Hanovers eh ? I'm not really a big "monarchist", but what would you replace them with? Could be evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.