|
Post by kizzy on Feb 18, 2005 8:36:40 GMT
I have moved some posts by Ruff Ashlar and Taylorsman to this thread as I feel they are not relevant to the one about Templars although they arose from remarks posted there. Let battle commence but let's try to keep it polite and courteous folks. TAYLORSMAN'S Original Post on PC. "I really have no time for race comments. " Same here Whistler. I am sick to my back teeth with the way that "Racist" is trotted out as a "Squelch" against any remark that someone does not agree with which in any way brings in ethnicity or colour or derivation and makes a comparison on those grounds, even when no derogatory or insulting comment is made nor intended. We ARE different and certain types have inherent strengths and weaknesses compared to others. Some of this is due to physical, genetic characteristics, some to Geography and Geology, some to History, some peoples are slaves to their Religion and Culture and are held back thereby. It's not all a one way street either to the benefit only of White Europeans and Americans of that descent. Just look at how Blacks dominate many of the Worlds Sports and the dominance of players of African and Afro Carribean origin in English League Football bears testimony to that. There are diseases such as Sickle Cell Anaemia which affects Blacks but rarely seen in Whites but other diseases which work in the other direction. To state these matters is NOT Racist, it is not doing down other Races, it's simply stating a fact. Since the inception of "PC", a cancer as far as I am concerned, we have suffered from the "King's New Clothes" syndrome where we have all to see things which are palpably unture and like the famous "Elephant in the sitting room" ignore those which do not fit in with the received wisdom. Well I reject all that and whilst I would NOT use perjorative terms such as the "N" word for a Black, (I would not be so rude in any event to anyone), I will not pander to the PC Mob either. I still refer to those men who prefer other men in a sexual context by the factual word "Homosexual" and their female equivalent as "Lesbian" , a statement of fact, not offered as an insult nor a condemnation. I suppose some would use the other now less popular "squelch" against me of "Fascist", well, if that's what they want to call me. Sieg Heil!
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Feb 18, 2005 8:42:32 GMT
I'm surprised no-one's called me one of those yet. I know: it's coming in the mail. I always recommend reading the entire thread before shooting one's mouth off. As both whistler and Taylorsman seem to be sitting in the same casualty department nursing that very injury, allow me to recap. The current spate of pernicious misunderstandings stems from Russell's inclusion in a post of this link - www.celticnz.co.nz - to a site which professes that the ancient Celts, NOT the Polynesians or their predecessors, were actually responsible for the cultural artefacts and historic monuments of EnZed. I wish it to be known, lest there be some doubt (and it does seem there might be, just a smidgen), that I think the content of that site is laughable and ridiculous, and anyone taking it seriously ought to have their head examined to see if perhaps their brain has fallen out during the night. I think it's as ridiculous as the claim that both Egypt and South America were settled by the Atlanteans, thus accounting for the common architectural feature of the pyramid; or that God's Chosen People were really a pale-skinned blond race whose religion and Scripture were latterly taken over by an evil nation-state known to posterity as Jews. Both those things are laughable, and both were seriously-held beliefs at one time. Some of the people who believed those things were literally Fascists, some were those troublesome pseudo-Fascists we call Nazis. Others were just ordinary people to whom these ideas seemed to make sense. I'm not saying that one has to be racist to believe these ideas. I'm saying, these ideas are so far-fetched and unlikely that it is beyond the limits of the remotely likely that they might even be believeable. So you have to ask yourself why you do believe it. And maybe it's because it's never seemed plausible to you that all those products of civilisation could have been made by illiterate non-Europeans living in huts. But it's somehow more likely that they were made by illiterate Europeans living in huts. Why? Who knows why? What makes one belief more believeable than another? Upbringing, education - the two words were originally synonymous. While I do believe Political Correctness can be overdone, and has been, I think many incidents of exaggerated PC over-sensitivity have been manufactured to discredit it in the public eye. I do not consider PC to be a cancer upon culture, but at worst an irritant scab: when it has done its painful work and been at last picked away, all that will be left is the new face of culture. Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno -- P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos ruffashlar Full Member member is offline Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.) Gender: Posts: 159 Re: Yes the templars again !!! « Reply #21 on: Today at 08:25:54 » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, what any of this has to do with the Templars is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Feb 18, 2005 8:45:02 GMT
I wish I could be as relaxed about PC as Ruff.
To me it is Orwell's "Newspeak" made flesh and is every bit as sinister and pernicious. Orwell explained in 1984 that the underlying purpose of Newspeak was to prevent people from "Thoughtcrime" by removing the words needed to frame and verbalise an opinion contrary to the policy and principles of the regime. The example he used amongst others was that this new language did not contain the words to let one state "Big Brother is Bad". In our PC Society it may not be "Big Brother" be he Tony Blair or whatever Leader, at least not yet, but certain client groups which are protected as the words which are held to be critical of them are whitewashed out of everyday speech. Now I am not saying that we should be free to use the "N" word for a Black or the "W" word for someone for the Indian sub continent, these expressions have been considered as insults for many years and rightly so. However there are other words which do not have this well known and generally accepted wrongness but which are barred by the PC Brigade. I once rebuked a child for rowdiness, saying he was "Naughty" to be told by his parent that this word was NOT used these days. When the child was out of earshot I gave his dad the benefit of some far more robust words of the Common People!
There is a whole sloppy, "liberal" ethos underlying PC which I and many others feel is eroding the values and standards of Decent Society and this can be seen in other aspects such as the "Rights" of the wrongdoer being equal if not better than those of the victim, of the Minorities being allowed to overide Majorities etc.
We do this at our peril and although Economically we are at present quite comfortable here in the UK there is an increasingly disgruntled and disillusioned mood towards Parliament, Elections etc and what is perceived as an "Out of Touch with the Ordinary People Governing Elite" following its own agenda, and a washed out and moribund Opposition which lacks electibility. It is in such a climate that extremism can flourish. Remember Weimar Germany?
Well, thats' enough of a Party Political from me, (guess which Parties I WON'T be voting for in May!). I feel that on the matter of PC I will just have to disagree strongly with Ruff as we do on most other issues. Logged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Location Thames Valley- England
A 24/7 Freemason. Pages: 1 2
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Feb 18, 2005 8:45:37 GMT
Political correctness ? PC PROPER CRAP morelike. We wer only discussing this morning that kids nowdays are more "racist" than our generation were when there was no PC bollocks. They have to be careful what they say at school in case of being accused racist when they school allows ethnic clubs that white kids are not allowed to attend. The N word must not be used and one i would not use and is frowned upon by the ethnic race if used by whites but they freely use it amongst themselves. I am confused ?? I dont care what colour race or religion a person is as it is his qualities that count that makes him the person. We are worse off with PC than ever before and in my opinion it although i know it is not just about race we would be a better societuy without tiptoeing on broken glass all the time.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 19, 2005 19:34:42 GMT
There is a whole sloppy, "liberal" ethos underlying PC which I and many others feel is eroding the values and standards of Decent Society
People who stand in opposition to Political Correctness do not understand it. The only reason everyone now tiptoes around the word n i g g e r is directly *because* of Political Correctness. We have PC to thank for the un-useability of that word in ordinary conversation, even by white people. The greatest efforts by a cultured, liberalising minority have done their work, and are in the process of making other offensive language similarly a pariah. These terms include darky, Paki, poof, spazzer, and so on. Some perhaps are already un-useable, others may take longer to discourage.
It is not the words themselves which are being eradicated - for they never do go away entirely, merely drop out of circulation, or are sometimes supplanted - but the mindset which uses therm.
Have you noticed there is not one term of abuse in the English language for a white heterosexual male? (The US honky actually denotes a German immigrant, and is anyway restricted to 1970s Blaxplo movies.) This is because white heterosexual male society is the default of Western language and society: racist, sexist and other abusive language delineates minorities in contrast to the host society, which is thus self-defined as Normal.
If minority groups seem to get special treatment, it is because everything else in society favours a presumed white heterosexual male-dominated majority.
It is, I maintain, the vulgarian strand of trash journalism which is attempting to discredit the good work of PC by highlighting (or inventing) the stupidest extremes of perhaps well-intentioned PC-esque reforms.
Someone was telling me the other day that brainstorming sessions were to be replaced with thought showers, in case Epileptics were offended. Perhaps they were afraid they'd throw a fit of anger. Examples of this kind are just ridiculous, and I honestly counsel everyone to resist what is either in fact or in spirit a tabloid smear campaign against PC. I say in fact or spirit, because honestly some people just do the work of the tabloid editors for them. For every sincere PC advocate, there must be two thick ones who need a good slap.
Well, if that's what it takes to get rid of minority-abusive language, so mote it be.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 19, 2005 20:10:31 GMT
I someone had asked me to do a "Ruff Ashlar" reply on PC I could not do better, it is a parody of itself! All the usual cliches and old chestnuts.
Like it or not, banning of certain words will NOT change the outlook of those who feel that way. As an example the "N" word is forbidden. I have heard plenty of substitutes which whilst not as recognisable as an insult still convey the attitudes of the user against that ethnic group. Those who dislike male homosexuality will still use the words beginning with "P", "F" or "Q" amongst likeminded people, and some euphemism if in a situation such as their place of employment (where they could suffer sanctions) such as the use of the factual "homosexual" instead. Simply banning certain words is but papering over the cracks, and whilst it may be a comfort to those offended it will not change the hostile attitudes of those who previously used them.
Indeed it can often be counter productive engendering resentment at the special treatment afforded to a minority against the majority. As has been said of the Race Relations and other such Acts "You can't legislate people to love each other!"
Quote "white heterosexual male society is the default of Western language and society" I have to agree totally with Ruff there as one who is a White Heterosexual Western Male. I owe nobody an apology for that, and whilst I view everyone on their individual merits and conduct and judge them accordingly , I do not believe in special treatment for minorities over and above the majority, no Quotas, Affirmative Action, Positive Discrimination.
I listen to many ordinary people male and female and there is a strong and growing undercurrent of resentment at the actions of the PC Brigade . If they are not careful they could engender a backlash, exploited by Populist Politicians in the current situation of disillusion with the Mainstream parties which could engulf the innocent with the guilty alike!
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Feb 20, 2005 5:03:51 GMT
Some of the best None Pc Comments come fro minorities We had a most wonderful lady Dame Whina Cooper New Zealand Maori activist (b. Dec. 9, 1895, Panguru, Northland region, N.Z.--d. March 26, 1994, Panguru), campaigned throughout her life for land rights and social justice for the aboriginal Maori people. As the daughter of the tribal chief Heremia Te Wake, Cooper was a highly visible leader. At age 18 she led her first protest--concerning the draining of a local swamp. She made the statement that the Race relations will resolve themselves in the Bedrooms of the Country. She was so correct - Yes there are Maori Radicals - In the whole history of our country form the first Whalers we have been sleeping and having children together. Most New Zealanders who have been here more than a generation, will find a real mixture of Polynesian, and European within their family - I have English, Scottish Fijian Maori even welsh and more in mine and I think it is really neat we certainly don't look at each other and say You look Maori or you Look Scottish we don't even think about it we are just family- Even the Radical Maori who Chopped down a focal tree on an Auckland Hill, His name is Mike Smith. We have Sir Tipene O’Regan, Leader of the Largest Tribe in the South Island. Then there is "The Royal Family welcomed its first Maori on Saturday when Lady Davina Windsor walked down the aisle with Gary Lewis. The 26-year-old royal married the former sheep-shearer after a four-year romance."
This is what Race relations is all about - It is about being who you are
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 20, 2005 8:29:37 GMT
Exactly Whistler! See the man or woman not the wrapping.
I try to treat all people as equal and judge them on their abilities, behaviour, attitude - attributes common to all whatever colour or race or gender. If a person works with me they are accounted for as a Technician, not a Black, White, Brown or Yellow, Male or Female Techician on the basis of their skill, experience and workmanship. They are accounted for as a person on the basis of their conduct, friendliness, attitude etc. In life there are some people we will like , some we will not, that is Life.
My objection is to special pleading, positive discrimination and this mind set which says that we owe an apology to other races etc for past wrongs. My own belief is for strict equality, no concessions. As an example in my home town there is a club for teenagers, the Central Club. Although it is techically for ALL Youth in the area, de facto it has for many years been a Black Youth Club, my town having a large Afro Carribean community. On the wall of this club on a main road and opposite a large Shopping centre there is a mural depicting scenes from Black History with many well known figures shown. Fine, people should take pride in their history and culture. Now my problem is what would happen were a club to be set up for those in former Colonial Service with a mural showing figures such as Churchill, Rhodes, Clive, Kipling, Wolfe, Raffles etc? It would cause a riot. Then again we have various facilities run or backed by the local authority specifically for Black or Asian Citizens yet such a provision for Whites only would be branded Racist.
If we want a truly balanced Society then we will have to achive it the hard way and NOT by such contrivances as Quotas, Affirmative Action etc. For example, if a man is a Police Inspector and is Black I would like to think he has achieved his rank owing to service, hard work and ability and thus stands equal to any other Officer of that rank and not to satisfy some quota set by the Race Relations Industry. What next, will Grand Lodge be told it has too few Black and Asian Grand Officers and be asked to appoint more Brethren from those Ethnic Groups?
There will always be Racists, Sexists, Religious Bigots, thankfully most people are not like that and accept other people for their content and not their wrapper, but to force the situation by Laws and special measures , however well intentioned breeds resentment within the Majority and plays into the hands of extremists, and I count Political Correctness as such a practice and one which ultimately will backfire on its originators.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 21, 2005 1:12:21 GMT
I agree that "White Heterosexual Western Male" have no need to apologise for the misdeeds of history and the misdemeanours of some abusive idiots. I agree too that society ought to be equal for all, with no privilege based on race, colour, religion, sex, orientation or accident of birth.
But the fact is, society is still not fair and equal, and you can't wait idly until it becomes so, you have to make it fair, the hard way. That means, you don't just wait for minority groups to get better represented in the police or armed forces, because if there's nothing to make change happen, it won't.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 21, 2005 8:49:52 GMT
So by being "fair" to a minority one means being "unfair" to a majority? Sorry, I don't buy into that!
With the exception of the Disabled and the Elderly for whom special consideration and adaptations need to be made I feel we must all stand and fall on our merits. Consider the feelings of the White Student who attains the requisite grades but is passed over for University etc and a Black or Asian selected in the place not on academic merit and aptitude but soley on ethnicity, even worse if the latter student has worse grades but gets in as part of a quota. Remember the "Baake Case" in the USA? Such behaviour only breeds resentment. There is also the point that the Black or Asian student so chosen will know in their heart that they are there as a result of a contrived situation, not on their own abilities and others may feel the same in respect to him or her, as in my earlier example of the Black Police Inspector, a devalued qualification if a result of Ethnicity alone.
Enough of my hypothesis! let me give you a hot off the press example. Today it is announced that a School called "The Tabernacle" is opening in London. Now this school is for children who have had behavioural problems and have been excluded from ordinary schools. Fine so far, very laudable. However it is annouced quite openly as a "Blacks Only" school and apparently this is quite legal. To my mind, and that of many others, this makes a mockery of all the Race Relations Rules. Imagine the furore if someone set up a "Whites Only" school? Questions in the House by the likes of Mr Mullins and his fellow "tortured consciences", references to South Africa of pre-Mandela days and Apartheid.
Let us have TRUE equality, a level playing field and no special exceptions.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 22, 2005 3:55:19 GMT
So by being "fair" to a minority one means being "unfair" to a majority?
It is impossible to be fair unilaterally: if fairness is not apportioned to all on the basis of their requirements, it is not fair.
Black children, boys in particular, who are excluded from school stand a statistically inflated chance of ending up in prison compared to the rest of us, including Whites, as well as Asians and other minorities. You and I may argue long and weary as to reasons why that should be, but it is certainly not entirely due to their shortcomings as individuals. There is doubtless a raft of issues, too numerous to pick apart here, which amount to a culture of failure in a discrete segment of the population.
That is a problem which needs special attention to put right - the solution might indeed be to concentrate excluded pupils in a race-specific environment to build group cohesion and ethnic pride. We must treat them according to their needs. In this they are no different from the Disabled and the Elderly or otherwise disadvantaged groups.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 22, 2005 8:53:48 GMT
I wonder now if a school for white only children whom it was felt needed to be with their own kind was to be proposed if it would encounter such a relaxed attitiude from the Race Relations Lobby and the Politically Correct, I somehow doubt it.
There is a glimmer of hope for those of use who detest Quotas, Rigged Selections etc. Yesterday in West Ham in London a White Local Councillor was chosen as New Labour Candidate for the General Election this May to replace the current MP who is to retire then. Now this was despite the efforts of the Race Relations and PC mob to fix the selection of a Black Candidate of whom there were 3 on the short list of five. A victory for faireness and I wish the successfull Candidate and thus, given the Political complexion of that seat, its next MP good luck in being selected against the odds. Hard Cheese on the fixers who are hopping mad that their schemes came to nought. My only regret was that it was an all female list , another example of rigging I dislike and one reason why I can not support any Party which indulges in such practices. If I vote at the coming Election it would not be for any Candidate who got there by a "fix" be that on their Gender or Ethnicity, but only one selected in an open competition on merit and suitability alone.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 23, 2005 1:00:31 GMT
You argue convincingly, even I must admit, the case against anyone favouring the culture of "fixes" and special-case kid-glove treatment designed to hand unfair advantages to one Minority against the interests of the rest of us.
I'd no idea you had decided to oppose the condition of privilege inhabited in this country by the Monarch and Royal Family.
Please spare yourself the indignity of a climbdown: your argument places you squarely in opposition to a legal system under which the crowned head has immunity from prosecution, has a job for life no-one can even get a crack at unless they are the Monarch's blood relations, and this post is in any case, under the terms of the Act of Settlement, not occupiable by a Roman Catholic.
I agree, the Monarch's job should be, in your words, "only one selected in an open competition on merit and suitability alone. "
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Feb 23, 2005 7:52:16 GMT
The worst thing about wimmin only lists is that it denegrates the real achievments of those women who have been selected on the basis of true merit. There are currently several seats in Wales that have been vacated by the current incumbents (did they fall or were they pushed? ) and the constituencies have had all wimmin lists imposed on them - as far as I have been able to make out not one of the wimmin shortlisted actually comes from the area they will be supposedly representing.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 23, 2005 8:55:49 GMT
Ah yes, this is like meeting an old friend!
One of the classic ploys of the liberal intellectual is to muddy the waters by throwing in a subject which seems to fall within the ambit of the argument especially when they feel it may be one dear to the heart of the opponent.
Now as regards the Monarchy, yes I DO support it. When one looks to the alternatives it is a far better system than we could have. Just imagine an elected Executive President Blair or Thatcher or perhaps worse a Figurehead President with some washed up politico occupying that role, President Prescott, President Hurd? I'd sooner have a King or Queen I could respect and one not involved in Party Politics. On such points as Crown Immunity, this has been greatly diminished in recent years and The Crown can now be sued. Aolthough you don't mention it, they even pay Tax these days. To my mind it would be no bad thing to remove immunity from the Monarch themselves as an Individual should they commit a crime against the Laws administered in their name and would not weaken the Monarchy in any way.
We DID once try a King, Charles I who was of course executed, whether he deserved this fate is a matter of debate of course. As to the Act of Settlement, I don't see this being put to the test in practical terms but since the two Countries are "Officially" Protestant, (at least in theory even if most people these days are not religious and Churchgoing), and the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England (unless and until the Church is dis-established), I cannot see that a practicing Roman Catholic could be our Sovereign. Perhaps Ruff you will be lucky and in years to come there will be a referendum in Scotland which will opt for a Republic and free you from being a Subject of a Monarchy.
In any event, there are not many people queuing up for the position of King or Queen, it's a single job occupied normally from Accession till the Death of the Incumbent, (a bit like the Pope there eh?). I am more interested in the day to day and practical situations, pupils applying for University and College places, applicants for Jobs, Candidates for Elected Office, the Allocation of Housing, School Places etc, Promotion in the Public and Armed Services , not in the position of a single man or woman, even if Parliament, The Courts and the Forces are run in their name and their face goes on the Stamps and Currency.
Bod, I don't think that the likes of Margaret Bonfield, Jenny Lee, Barbara Castle, Judith Hart, Joan Lestor, Betty Boothroyd or even Margaret Thatcher needed an "all women short list" and look at the impact they made in Parliament and Public Life. I am not sure which Party I will vote for, (not likely to be one of the main three), if I vote at all in the General Election this May but I would NOT vote for any Candidate who had been chosen as a result of a "fixed" short list be that "all women" or "ethnic minority only". Bod, the solution to you and other Welsh electors is not to vote for any of these imposed and fixed candidates but even if it goes against your usual Party preference vote for a candidate who has been selected by Fair Work and Square!
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 24, 2005 9:57:45 GMT
One of the classic ploys of the liberal intellectual is to muddy the waters by throwing in a subject which seems to fall within the ambit of the argument...
It is directly relevant to the subject: how can a meritocracy exist if the top jobs are already sewn up between the members of a social class which no-one else in the country can even enter, no matter how hard they work?
By the terms of your argument hitherto, the special status and privilege enjoyed by any minority group in society is everything you despise in the current administration; yet make of these sins every one a virtue when applied to the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
...especially when they feel it may be one dear to the heart of the opponent
Believe me, I did not want to do it. You know how little love I have for the Monarchy (all monarchies in fact - including, I would have hoped you had remembered, that decaying heap of hypocrisy, the Pontifex Maximus of the Church into which I was Baptised), but I know how great is yours for the ruler of this land. I respect you enough to leave off a subject whereon, through my ignorance of its sensitivity, I have caused you offence in the past. My aim is not to hurt you, Taylorsman, in any way. We tilt at one another not with sabres, but tipped foils.
However, the gravity of the argument called for serious pyrotechnics. You cannot make a plea for literal equality, an end to privilege and the unfair advantage of one group over all others, and then stick in a clause excepting one minority of all the same faults you profess to dislike.
That is what people do when they have lost the argument. Touché
I'd sooner have a King or Queen I could respect and one not involved in Party Politics
Well, it doesn't matter if you would, because they're in place whether you like it or not. And don't be so naive as to think the Monarch is not involved in Party Politics. Anyone who has the constitutional power to write Je considère is involved in Party Politics whether self-admittedly or not.
As to the Act of Settlement [...] I cannot see that a practicing Roman Catholic could be our Sovereign.
The Act is under review as we speak; it is unconstitutional in European law, and were it not for the fact of its existence would be so in English and Scottish law also. Given that Her Majesty has at time of writing just given notice that she will not be attending her eldest son's civil marriage ceremony, perhaps this is the first of several wedges which may drive them irrevocably apart; or, who can say? perhaps it is merely the latest. I too doubt it would happen, never mind whether it will or won't; but if the Prince of Wales should take the throne and become leader of the Church of England, and continue to associate with the forms and observances of the Romish faith, it may be that he will have already become a Catholic in all but name. I wish him all the best of luck in it, if he so chooses.
For myself, nothing less than a new puff of white smoke will do.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 24, 2005 11:31:29 GMT
Well you may be getting your "Puff of White Smoke" sooner than your think Ruff? As I type the Pope is back in the clinic and I feel is heading one way this time. Now you intrigue me by this, if I may quote. "but if the Prince of Wales should take the throne and become leader of the Church of England, and continue to associate with the forms and observances of the Romish faith, it may be that he will have already become a Catholic in all but name." Tell me more!!!!! Now had you said Tony Blair, I have long suspected that HE is a "Closet Catholic". Blair takes Communion in that Church, regularly attends its Mass with his wife who is one, has had at least one of his children Leo baptised as an RC and perhaps the others too. I assume he is nominaly an Anglican to satisfy the requirements of that Act you so detest, but in his heart is an RC and if and when he retires as PM I will NOT be at all surprised if he converts to being an RC. Now I was unaware that Prince Charles was in any way allied to the Roman Church. If anything I would have thought that Eastern or New Age Religions would have been his scene although he has to be Anglican as Heir to the Throne, it goes with the job, but has always come across as a very indifferent one. I am not even sure of he is High Anglican as opposed to Broad or Low Church, this has never been a matter of debate regarding him, although he is controversial in many other aspects of his Life, for example his marital affairs, his philosophy as already mentioned, his views on modern Architecture etc. Now I don't know about Camilla. Her ex husband is an RC I think but that did not prevent her divorcing him whether he consented or not, nor living with Charles and her subsequent second marriage in a few weeks time. Now can I ask you a question, Ruff? Are you a Journalist? You come across as having many of the attributes of one. Of course you may decline to answer, that is your right, but I am curious?
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 24, 2005 23:36:16 GMT
I don't know whether to be offended or flattered. I'll be flattered, I think, as that's how I hope it was intended ;D
No, I am no journalist. A journalist has to check his facts to deserve the name; but all too frequently, he decides to write fiction, without admitting his change of métier. I face no such dilemma: when I write fiction, I invent freely; when nonfiction, the facts outstrip invention. Only my powers of intellect match the precision of true journalism.
Interestingly, however, the word Journalism derives from Daniel Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year - a work of fiction, but full of well-researched material. There was no Press to speak of, and what there was certainly was not free, so he publicised the terrible events of 1665 - in which a city is basically placed under siege by its own civil and police powers - in the form of a novel.
No such limits are placed upon quotidian newshounds. It is therefore a matter of common knowledge, and public record, that the Heir to the throne has become interested in the Catholic flavour of Christianity. I would say aligned, but that is too strong. Suffice to say, his natural eclecticism and dilettantism has led him into a study of it perhaps no deeper than his already familiar detours into Eastern mysticism. Exactly how deep is not quantifiable. He has a lot of time on his hands, and must be more aware than anyone of the existential quandary of self-validation through action, when his alloted role is to be a ceremonial potentate only. He can espouse any cause he wishes, and has done so already in a pattern which may give some insight into any later projects. Conservative values in art and architecture, the Classical and Renaissance ideals; multiculturalism; ecology.
Furthermore, as reported in The Times in 2000, former Liberal leader Paddy Ashdown's diaries reveal a side to the Prince's character that is candid and (sic) catholic:-
Charles looked at me, smiled broadly and said – "I really can’t think why we can’t have Catholics on the throne" Mr Ashdown wrote.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 25, 2005 7:44:53 GMT
Well, if that is so and has some authority to it over and above the remarks and recollections of a former and rapidly forgotten former leader of the third political party then if Charles does in time succeed his mother that will be one more bone of contention to add to the Camilla situation. I don't see "God Save the King" being sung with such gusto in Larkhall if Charles is, as you put it, "Romish". Of course he may be attracted by the Ritualistic side of Catholic Worship whilst rejecting that Church's Doctrines and Dogmas, a position taken by many High Anglicans, Catholic in Practices, Protestant in Theory. As to whether he does ever ascend the Throne, that is in the hands of God. English Queens are given to longevity, look at Victoria, Queen Mary, the Queen Mother for recent examples, so Elizabeth II could well be Queen in another 15 years time.
I feel to conclude this exchange of opposing and irreconciliable views I would state that I not only reject PC in the form of it's language, e.g. the reference to the "Chair" of a Committee, "Spokesperson" etc, none of which I use, but the whole ethos which informs PC as a philosophy, whilst I perceive you Ruff as an enthusiastic supporter thereof. Little chance indeed of any meeting of minds there.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Feb 25, 2005 8:25:22 GMT
On another thought historians talk about "The Evoloution of Man"
in todays PC world is this incorrect ?
Does this offend Women ?
Where does it stop
|
|