And I'd be very surprised if your prejudices had any basis in reality. You speak to many British muslims do you? Actually wait, can this thread be about Tony Blair possibly becoming Catholic rather than another Muslim-bashing one?Originally Posted by Leopold Bloom
Surveys have indicated that they'd like sharia law - don't think they can expect that from a Jewish leader.And I'd be very surprised if your prejudices had any basis in reality. You speak to many British muslims do you?
(Though Kosher & Hal-al food laws are strinkingly alike, not surpising as they are basically food saftey laws for the desert)
cYp
"Yawn , am I alive yet ?"
But neither can they expect it from a Labour or Liberal Democrat leader either so I dont think that's relevant. But as I said - muslim-bashing happens on loads of threads set up specifically for muslim-bashing so maybe we can leave this one to the subject in hand.
It is not Muslim bashing - those extremists - whilst possibly able to vote for a Christian (or George Galloway) would have more difficulties with some one Jewish.But neither can they expect it from a Labour or Liberal Democrat leader either so I dont think that's relevant. But as I said - muslim-bashing happens on loads of threads set up specifically for muslim-bashing so maybe we can leave this one to the subject in hand.
It goes to show how personal religion can be relevant.
cYp
"Yawn , am I alive yet ?"
But it doesnt go to show that Michael Howard's Jewishness cost the Tories votes. First of all not very many people were aware of his Jewishness (flying pig poster controversy or not) and secondly only people in Folkestone were voting for Michael Howard personally. Of course personal religion (or race) can be (and is) relevant - you only have to look at the votes in, say, Tower Hamlets or many towns in Yorkshire. But the idea that Howard's Jewishness cost the Tories votes is far-fetched. And the attempt to shoe-horn muslim-bashing into the thread is risible. It was (mostly) about Tony Blair becoming Catholic until that post.
Forgive me but I'm not seeing the big deal here. Blair has been described as an 'Anglo-Catholic' before, meaning he was very close to Catholism. He attends Mass every week with his wife and children.
There is a constitutional requirement for the monarch to be Protestant (Act of settlement) but there is no such requirement for PM. At the last election the leader of the Opposistion Michael Howard was Jewish, Charles Kenneddy was Catholic. Howard's Tory predecessor Iain Duncan Smith was Catholic. Their religion was irrelevant.
It is the PM's role to appoint the Archbishop of Cantenbury, but you don't have to be Church of England. The next PM will be Gordon Brown and if the Archbishop retires during his term of office, Brown - a Presbyterian - will be appointing the leader of a church he himself doesn't affiliate with.
Also, wasn't Disraelli Jewish?
Economic Left/Right: -3.13; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64
“University politics are so vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small.” Henry Kissinger
Disraeli was Jewish legally... by that I mean that his mother was Jewish, in fact both his parents were Jewish. Thus he was a Jew. However he was baptised Anglican (presumably they must have converted) so he was sort of both I guess!!
And correct Browne is a Presbyterian. However, he is apparently going to sign away the state's role in the appointment of bishops in his first few weeks of office.
It is complicated. The sovereign's coronation oath requires her to uphold the Protestant Faith. That used to mean that Catholics could not hold executive office, as they are "His/Majesty's Ministers of the Crown". However since the Great Reform Act, though the government is the Queen's, she decides on who forms a government based on parliamentary arithmetic. Catholics have served in cabinets for nearly a century, and the Queen has appointed Catholics using the royal sign manual to court positions, judicial positions, diplomatic and consular positions, etc. The Prince of Wales has two Catholic step-children. Queen Victoria was openly critical of discrimination against Catholics, a controversial stance in 19th century Britain which had enacted the Ecclesiastical Titles Act against the Catholic Bishops. (Rumours that Victoria's natural father was actually Sir John Conroy, an Irish adventurer and lover of her mother, led some anti-Catholic elements in Britain to suggest that Victoria was secretly a Catholic herself.) George V appointed a Catholic Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, breaching precedent, while a year later the Catholic Timothy M. Healy was appointed Governor-General of the Irish Free State, the first appointment that I know of, of a Catholic representative of the crown, since the Act of Settlement.
So at this stage, the use of the coronation oath in deciding on whether a Catholic can hold office under the sovereign seems to have been superceded, indeed probably obselete. But with Britain's unwritten constitution, precedent decides what can and cannot happen, and as of now no Catholic has become PM. But it seems simply a matter of time. The requirement that Disraeli (Beaconfield) join the established church to qualify for entry to a ministry would appear to have long since become irrelevant.
Disraeli was baptised as an anglican when he was a boy - he didnt change religion to enter government (or even parliament). In fact Jews were not allowed into Parliament when Disraeli was first elected as an MP (emancipation for Jews coming only in 1858).
I have heard he will wait till after leaving office - probably because of Unionist sensitivies in NI. However if he did it beforehand it would be historic as the first Catholic PM in the UK/England since Cardinal Wolsey and I suppose from the perspective of social-equality it would be a good thing.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote