It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blair Converts To Catholicism

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Blair Converts To Catholicism


news.sky.com

Former prime minister Tony Blair has converted to Roman Catholicism after years of speculation over his faith

Mr Blair was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor during Mass in the chapel at Archbishop's House in Westminster on Friday night.

The Cardinal said: "I am very glad to welcome Tony Blair into the Catholic Church.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Many questions did circle around Blair in office, especially about his faith. Under British constitutional law, a Catholic cannot be King or Queen, which lead Blair to believe a Catholic cannot be head of government either.*

Blair was believed to ask once "can a Catholic be Prime Minister?", this revelation does ask one question.

Should the ban of Catholics being head of State be lifted in the United Kingdom? I think so, many others do. This isn't the 17th Century, the Pope does not want to take over Britain.

*The Prime Minister has to appoint Bishops to the Church of England, so being Catholic (some felt) would make that duty impossible.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
i my personal opinion religion should have no place in government



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkey
i my personal opinion religion should have no place in government


Under the British monarchy system, Church and State is one entity. The Monarch is the head of the Church of England too.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
If I remember correctly, there are laws that stop the discrimination of religious beliefs being a problem in employment.

So why does this seem to be an existing problem for any of these 'top' positions ?

Religious beliefs should have no part in the job you do, unless you use your beliefs to influence the system. Then, of course, you are forcing personal opinions onto global issues rather than taking into consideration the beliefs of the whole.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Score 1 for the bad guys!!


Joking aside, it must of been very frustrating for blair during his terms in office having to go along with a faith he did not 100% belive in,I feel sorry for the man



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disgustipated
Joking aside, it must of been very frustrating for blair during his terms in office having to go along with a faith he did not 100% belive in,I feel sorry for the man


I agree.

I don't reckon there would of been a problem, the population is not the same of the 17th Century. Blair wouldn't of been burned at the stake and the Church of England would not perform a coup against him.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemonkey
 


The only way that could happen is if everyone who serves in government is a confirmed, *not professed* athiest.

So tell me, how do you do that?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Should the ban of Catholics being head of State be lifted in the United Kingdom? I think so, many others do. This isn't the 17th Century, the Pope does not want to take over Britain.


Short answer, no.

Long answer, in order to do that, you'd have to remove the Monarch as Head of the CoE and the wider Anglican community or remove the Monarch has Head of State.

Neither of which is possible under current Law, or even desirable.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Long answer, in order to do that, you'd have to remove the Monarch as Head of the CoE and the wider Anglican community or remove the Monarch has Head of State.


Again proves why we should be a Republic


It's easy to make the Church of England independent, remove them from the House of Lords and remove the Monarchs claim as governor of the Church.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Again proves why we should be a Republic


It's easy to make the Church of England independent, remove them from the House of Lords and remove the Monarchs claim as governor of the Church.


What your proposing there is a major constitutional change to the entire make up of the UK Government, which has taken centuries to get to where it is today.

Given the current establishment's way of working, nothing short of of actual rebellion would bring about the changes you suggest.

And that is assuming that they are even desired. To be honest, you are one of the few Republicans that I am aware of. You're an endangered species, infi.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
And that is assuming that they are even desired. To be honest, you are one of the few Republicans that I am aware of. You're an endangered species, infi.


No,
there are many Republicans in the United Kingdom. Especially in the media. Not forgetting the MPs who support a Republic. A large minority of them.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Not tryin to steal your thunder by any means, Infinite, but...

I posted this 6 or so months ago...

The thing that struck me about it at the time was that Blair and Bush had both met the Pope within short order of each other...

My theory at the time is His Holiness had orders from the Jesuit Masters to pass on to the two leaders whose time in office was to be short...

Anywho, thats my take on it

Carry on, folks



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
No,
there are many Republicans in the United Kingdom. Especially in the media. Not forgetting the MPs who support a Republic. A large minority of them.



I'm going to call you on that one and ask for proof, simply because I do not believe a word of it.

I do believe, however, that your wishfully indulging in what you say to reinforce your own republican views. Kind of like a smoker who says he isn't addicted and can give up whenever he likes, ignoring the facts as they are.

If the majority of MP's supported it, then the majority of the public would too, but they do not.

If that was the case, then we would have no Queen.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I don't think there's ever been an RC Prime Minister in the UK, has there ? There's certainly nothing on the statute books to prevent a Catholic becoming Prime Minister. I wonder why it's taken Blair so long to convert ?

As someone brought up in a truelly reformed church, CofS, there doesn't look to be much between RC & CoE anyway, they share the same hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops & Diocese, with someone at the top appointed by the Almighty. And they both share the same ceremonial flummery, although perhaps the CoE is the broader church of the two when it comes to doctrine, with anglo catholics at one extreme and evangelists at the other.

But I agree with Stumason ... there's no great desire amongst the Brits to abolish the monarchy right now. There is amongst some Guardian readers, obviously, and amongst a minority of Labour MP's for whom change for the sake of it is their only motivating factor. But how representative of the people are they ? Not very. And certainly there's no movement to disestablish the CofE.

Reforming the Act of Settlement, which ensures the monarch is Protestant, is going to be a legislative minefield too ... with Acts having to be passed in England & Wales, Scotland & most importantly Northern Ireland.

It's a total can of worms best left unopened.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Niall197
 


Spot on.

The problem, I suppose, was because the Prime Minister appointed bishops from the Church of England. But there's an easy way to solve it... strip the Prime Minister of that power and give it to a Select Committee to decide on (perhaps the Ecclesiastical Committee or something. I don't know... it's not all that important to be quite honest). I believe Gordon Brown has said he's going to do this anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem in the future.

No need to even touch the Monarch's role... it's a hereditary position anyway and so, due to that, the chances of a Catholic being in line for the throne is negligible except under the most extreme circumstances (nuclear war, for instance... by which time there won't be any United Kingdom left to reign over
).



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
A question, if I may, for you Brits


What are the "obstacles" to be overcome in order for Great Britain,or more specifically England, to become a republic ?

What process would need to be gone thru in order to make this successful ?

Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence
A question, if I may, for you Brits


What are the "obstacles" to be overcome in order for Great Britain,or more specifically England, to become a republic ?


England is not a country.

Great Britain is the country and we are at Union with Northern Ireland (i.e United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

England hasn't been a nation since 1707.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niall197
I don't think there's ever been an RC Prime Minister in the UK, has there ? There's certainly nothing on the statute books to prevent a Catholic becoming Prime Minister. I wonder why it's taken Blair so long to convert ?


There's been a Jewish, Benjamin Disraeli, 20 February 1874 – 21 April 1880 and again 27 February 1868 – 1 December 1868.

But he converted to a Christian before taking office.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
England is not a country.

Great Britain is the country and we are at Union with Northern Ireland (i.e United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

England hasn't been a nation since 1707.


England is a country, infinite.

It is referred to as a constituent country within the context of the UK. It is still a nation, as a nation can comprise of people as well as land. We are a country insofar that we have our national teams in sport, borders and our own culture.

Just because we share the same Parliament with the other's as a result of the Union, it does not detract from the fact England is a Nation. So is Scotland.

NI and Wales, however, are not. One is a province, the other is a Principality of the Kingdom of England due to it's annexation..

[edit on 22/12/07 by stumason]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join