Lets talk persecution...

[His Name Is John]

A large portion of these threads at the moment revolve around homosexuality and how they are being persecuted (not by the everyday person) by not having 'equal rights', now this is a worthy topic for debate, and if you have read some of these threads, you have no doubt come across my opinions about said matter.

But here is my problem with the whole debate. The homosexual community only 3.6 million LGBT people in the UK (the 'Government Actuary's Department' has estimated that by the year 2050 around 3.3 per cent of homosexuals aged 16 and over will be in registered civil partnerships, compared with a third of the heterosexual population who will be married. So the whole marriage debate about 3.3 million people (as far as the UK is concerned)).

Now, compare this to the 5.2 million Catholics.

I can tell several people (theists and atheists alike) are now expecting this to be a thread about how the every day Christian is persecuted in our society or something similar. Well, perhaps it kind of is. But before we jump to conclusions, lets look at the facts:

1. A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister
2. A Catholic cannot marry the King / Queen
3. Each year on the 5th of November, it is a tradition to burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes along with an effigy of the Pope

Now these things alone show a huge inequality and persecution.

Now the everyday man on the street probably has no problem with someone being a Catholic (they probably think every other priest is a pedophile, and the Vatican is corrupt, but have no problem with you believing what you do). The problem instead lies with tradition and the laws.

Catholics are being persecuted by unjust laws.

But when was the last time you saw the debate about this? The argument for gay-marriage is said to be an argument for 'equality', if this is true (which I think it generally is as far as intention at least), then why are people not also arguing for 'equality' allowing Catholics to become Prime Minister?

And while with the homosexual issue, the debate is ongoing, and many people (non-religious and non-gay) are still weighing it up, there is no reason why the Prime Minister should not be a Catholic. It means that the millions of people in this country cannot have a leader that shares their expression of the faith.

I would like those who are for 'equality' to prove they are, and start rallying for the Catholics as well as the homosexuals. Imagen if the law was that a homosexual couldn't be Prime Minister...

[Quath]

Is there a law on the books for (1) and (2)?

For (3), it sounds like free speech. I support that as much as I support Fred Phelp's Westbro Baptist Church.

[Furrowed Brow]

Tony Blair had to wait until he stopped bing Prime Minister before he could convert to Catholicism, though he had been attending Catholic church with his wife (who was always Catholic) for years.

(1) and (2) are unjust.

(3) can be fun I guess as I think most folk really do not connect Guy Fawkes to Catholicism, even the Catholics I know. I was unaware people burnt effigies of the Pope. This seems nasty, but I think that comes under free speech. But to be true it is a thin line. Burning Guy Fawkes is on a par with burning in another 17th century figure. It is pretty meaningless. Burning Guy Fawkes because he is Catholic and making it a political issue that say Catholics are second class citizens we ought to fear is another matter and I think there are laws like disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. Burning an effigy of the Pope because he covered a sex abuse scandal, or you think the Catholic Church's anti condom policy is causing untold harm in Africa seems ok to me. Burning an effigy because he is the anti christ is nuts.

As for (2) I am anti monarchy and having a terrible long weekend.

[McCulloch]

A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister (of the UK)

Is this a law in the UK? I could not find a reference to the PM's religious qualifications in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. As I understand it, the PM is selected by Parliament from among sitting MPs. There is no legal restriction for MPs to be non-Catholic.

By the way, in Canada, where we have a Parliamentary system similar to the UK, we have had several Catholic Prime Ministers.

[Furrowed Brow]

A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister (of the UK)

Is this a law in the UK? I could not find a reference to the PM's religious qualifications in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. As I understand it, the PM is selected by Parliament from among sitting MPs. There is no legal restriction for MPs to be non-Catholic.

By the way, in Canada, where we have a Parliamentary system similar to the UK, we have had several Catholic Prime Ministers.

I was under the impression it was law though I can't name the law. One problem is that the Queen takes advice from the Prime Minister on senior Church of England appontments I just read on wiki answers. This would be tad awkward if the Prime Minister is a Catholic. So there is a can of worms here with the instruments of state and the Church of Engand wedded together. Could the Queen as defender of the faith (meaning the Church of England) accept a Catholic Prime Minister, we vote for them but she appoints them and then has to meet them once a week. It she don't appoint them they can't form a government. I suspect it is because the Queen is meant to defend the Church of England she is duty bound not to appoint a Catholic.....maybe......I'm guessing really but suspect this is a prejudice built into the system. I don't think we have had a Catholic Prime Minster (officially anyway- Blair being a de facto Catholic).

[connermt]

I can tell several people (theists and atheists alike) are now expecting this to be a thread about how the every day Christian is persecuted in our society or something similar. Well, perhaps it kind of is. But before we jump to conclusions, lets look at the facts:

1. A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister
2. A Catholic cannot marry the King / Queen
3. Each year on the 5th of November, it is a tradition to burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes along with an effigy of the Pope

1 & 2) Seems to me that it's one's choice to be catholic or not. That being the case, people should go into that decision knowing what they are and aren't allowed to do. The decision to be gay is an involuntary one - just as it is to be straight. Therefore, the choice portion of the argument has been removed for gay people.
3) I know nothing of that tradition, or many other traditions. Therefore I can't comment on it past the fact that, there is no law (in the US) that forces one to keep all traditions.

I see where you're going here, I just don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison.

[McCulloch]

I was under the impression it was law though I can't name the law. One problem is that the Queen takes advice from the Prime Minister on senior Church of England appontments I just read on wiki answers. This would be tad awkward if the Prime Minister is a Catholic. So there is a can of worms here with the instruments of state and the Church of Engand wedded together. Could the Queen as defender of the faith (meaning the Church of England) accept a Catholic Prime Minister, we vote for them but she appoints them and then has to meet them once a week. It she don't appoint them they can't form a government. I suspect it is because the Queen is meant to defend the Church of England she is duty bound not to appoint a Catholic.....maybe......I'm guessing really but suspect this is a prejudice built into the system. I don't think we have had a Catholic Prime Minster (officially anyway- Blair being a de facto Catholic).

Ah, that's the difference between our Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy and yours. We have no established religion. The Queen is not "Defender of the Faith" for Canada. We have no Lords Spiritual in our upper house nor does our Head of State (the Monarch or her representative the Governor General) make any church appointments.

Established religion is a bad thing. England should disestablish the Anglican church as Wales and Scotland have.

[His Name Is John]

Thanks for the replies guys! Now onto my response:

Is there a law on the books for (1) and (2)?

I am pretty sure it is.

For (3), it sounds like free speech. I support that as much as I support Fred Phelp's Westbro Baptist Church.

Sure, I am not saying they should be arrested for doing so, but in the same way we can allow WBC from doing what they do, but know that it is persecution, we should think the same about burning effigies of the Pope.

Tony Blair had to wait until he stopped bing Prime Minister before he could convert to Catholicism, though he had been attending Catholic church with his wife (who was always Catholic) for years.

He should never have been allowed to become a Catholic.

(1) and (2) are unjust.

(3) can be fun I guess as I think most folk really do not connect Guy Fawkes to Catholicism, even the Catholics I know. I was unaware people burnt effigies of the Pope. This seems nasty, but I think that comes under free speech. But to be true it is a thin line.

That is the point I am getting at.

Burning Guy Fawkes is on a par with burning in another 17th century figure. It is pretty meaningless. Burning Guy Fawkes because he is Catholic and making it a political issue that say Catholics are second class citizens we ought to fear is another matter and I think there are laws like disturbing the peace or inciting a riot.

I think it is more a symbol than anything. I don't think the people who burn a Guy do so with hatred in their hearts for Catholics. But I think if it was a famous gay person in history we were burning - even if we weren't doing so out of hatred for gays any more (but hatred was the origins of the practice) - the homosexual community would be up in arms.

Burning an effigy of the Pope because he covered a sex abuse scandal, or you think the Catholic Church's anti condom policy is causing untold harm in Africa seems ok to me. Burning an effigy because he is the anti christ is nuts.

I don't think they do it because of that, as they have been burning effigies of the different Popes for hundreds of years. I doubt it is simply because they disagree with his handling of certain issues.

As for (2) I am anti monarchy and having a terrible long weekend.

I feel you pain (even though I am not really anti-monarchy).

1 & 2) Seems to me that it's one's choice to be catholic or not. That being the case, people should go into that decision knowing what they are and aren't allowed to do. The decision to be gay is an involuntary one - just as it is to be straight. Therefore, the choice portion of the argument has been removed for gay people.

I disagree. Gay people don't have to 'come out'. They can remain in the closet all they want and stay free of persecution. Now I see that they are not exactly the same, but they are more similar that you seem to be suggesting.

3) I know nothing of that tradition, or many other traditions. Therefore I can't comment on it past the fact that, there is no law (in the US) that forces one to keep all traditions.

Of course not, but there is an intrinsically anti-Catholic tradition that is still going today, yet no one is making a fuss about it, or saying that it should be stopped. I am saying that if you care about stopping 'persecution' they you should be rallying for the Catholics, who just don't have the same rights.

I see where you're going here, I just don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison.

Fair enough.

[Mr. LongView]

In my experience, often, you become what you fear.

As someone who trys to pay attention, some times I wonder.

I guess its just a matter of time.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Gay people don't have to 'come out'. They can remain in the closet all they want and stay free of persecution.

As someone who is dealing with "coming out" right now in my life, I have a few things to say about this...

Today I had a breakdown because (1) I have been fighting my sexual orientation for the past year due to the fact that being gay is not acceptable to most people. (2) I have been questioning (try having an internal struggle) if I am gay or not because of the fact that my mom is trying to tell me that "it's a disease" or that "I'm brainwashed". (3) I could be alone for the rest of my life if I accept that I am gay, due to the fact that most people could never understand who I am, and the fact that I don't live in a city with a high gay population.

There you go...the reason I am having emotional/mental problems is due to the fact that I am repressing/ignoring my own sexual/gender orientation.

Care to retract that last comment?