English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-05 21:42:13 · 5 answers · asked by oh yeah! 1 in Politics & Government Government

5 answers

I thought they did, but I was wrong. Sorry! I believe that the Monarch should be loyal to England, not Rome.

From:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/041129.htm?terms=education+in+uganda

The article at the above link addresses this question:

Britains's Act of Settlement 1701 prohibits a Catholic from ever becoming monarch. Many regard this as a form of religious bigotry and are working for its repeal. Of course, no repeal would open the monarchy to anyone - it would still only be available to Christians. Still, would allowing Catholics as well as Protestants to become king or queen be an advance for religious liberty?

2006-09-05 21:47:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

My friend, we have a very turbulent history. The Catholics were always seen as Romes lackey, and even worse, a tool of the French

We had several promenant Catholics executed at the tower of London, Purges of Catholic areas of the country where they were burned at the stake..Hell, the Civil War had an underlying religious hatred as a cause of hostilities between the Roundheads and the Cavaliers.

Mainly though friend, we would never allow a Catholic on the throne. We dont overly trust their kind over here, we're a protestant nation historically

2006-09-05 22:08:52 · answer #2 · answered by thomas p 5 · 0 0

Same reason why America don't allow them.

WASPS want to be in power.

I would be remiss if I answered that without further explaining.

True power (the power of having unimaginable wealth), is widely distrubuted and difficult to understand.

People believing their governments are free better think twice.

Catholics haven't been in presidential or Prime Minister positions for very long, and never (with the P.M.)

Goes back to when the Catholics were removed and replaced by the Anglican church in England in the sixteenth century.

Since then, the control of these governments has been in the hands of people with ties to other Christian churches.

Although all are Christians, the division among them is pronounced. Look at Bush's demeanor when he attended the funeral of pope John Paul 11. He felt way out of place, and put on his phony act to make the people think he adored the late pontiff. Gestures tell me a lot about these world leaders.

Behind closed doors, who knows what they do?

2006-09-05 21:55:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why it rather is a bad thought: a million. Catholics might desire to boost their infants Catholic so if royals start up marrying Catholics it fairly is basically a count of time in the previous we've a Catholic monarch. The monarch is the governor of the Church of england; a protestant church, so whilst this Catholic monarch does come the monarch will now not be allowed to be govern the Church of england. 2. Rome and Catholic bishops are consistently sticking their noses in politics. Many American bishops have mentioned they gained't supply communion to and think of excommunication might desire to ensue to politicians that help gay rights and abortion. If we've a Catholic monarch they could be threatened with ex-verbal replace with the help of Rome in the event that they don't oppose particular rules. Why it rather is a robust thought: a million. Catholicism will boost standard in Britain (as a rule through fact of eastern ecu immigration) hence it could please rather some human beings. 2. it could eliminate discrimination from our rules. Why it rather is a stupid thought: a million. The monarchy with the help of its very nature is a discriminatory element. No-you may aspire to be king, you're the two born to it or not, so attempting to make some thing it is with the help of its very nature full of discrimination much less discriminatory is stupid. 2. The monarchy is historical. putting some thing that previous in neat little twenty first century politically maximum appropriate multicultural bins of hand retaining comfortable feely love is ridiculous. 3. The replace became proposed with the help of anti-monarchy lib dems who have not got any great situation for the wellness of the royal relatives and are in simple terms hoping that forcing talks on the character of the monarchy for the time of each and all of the commonwealth international locations will weaken it.

2016-11-25 00:05:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Technically the King or Queen is the Head of the Church of England. It would be tough being the head of a Protestant Sect while being Catholic.

2006-09-05 23:59:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers