The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Disestablishment and worried Anglicans > Comments

Disestablishment and worried Anglicans : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 21/4/2009

Retaining a Protestant monarch on the throne seems like an anachronism in a country with many faiths and ethnic groups.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The author has touched upon many of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' that may appear to surround this happy circumstance, but hasn't mentioned the 'whereas'.

Whereas. The word with which the Australian Constitution commences.

Whereas, the word with which the Statute of Westminster 1931 also commences, introduces perhaps the most significant aspect of this issue. The second paragraph of its preamble says:

"AND WHEREAS it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall herafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:"

Recently, some commemorative plaques were emplaced in the church of St Clements Danes in London. They commemorated the service of pilots in Royal Australian Air Force squadrons that had participated in the Battle of Britain in 1940, 'Britain's darkest hour'. Such memorials had been omitted years before when many other plaques commemorating the service of pilots from elsewhere in the British Commonwealth had been dedicated.

Now the thing is, that of those surviving Australian pilots who attended the recent service at St Clements Danes, upon arrival in the UK they would not have been able to go straight through Customs like any UK or EU resident. They would have had to wait in line amongst the aliens.

In recognition of what has now come to be the situation with regard to entry of not just any British Commonwealth citizens into Britain, but the very surviving ones who had helped defend Britain in her darkest hour, why should the Australian Parliament give the slightest consideration to assenting to any change whatever in the law in Britain in this respect?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 9:29:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kampmark: "The Act of Settlement does seem like a remarkable anachronism in a country with many faiths and ethnic groups", and "Retaining a Protestant monarch on the throne seems like an anachronism in a country with many faiths and ethnic groups".

Hilarious! The barbaric and in-bred system of feudalism discriminates against more than 99% of people all because of some pomposities and other delusions entertained by a snobbish and (overwhelmingly) stupid clique of degenerate people-haters.

But for Kampmark, the problem is how to spin Monarchy into a concept somehow more acceptably "tolerant, liberalist", etc., by ticking boxes about being more open to other religious clubs and their symbols! As if those same degenerates ever had serious religious credentials anyway, ever since a mass murdering king created their odd sect.

Easy to see how Kampmark got his scholarships and contracts though; hope he wears protective kneepads and lip balm during his "hard work".
Posted by mil-observer, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 9:50:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's nothing wrong with having a Protestant Monarch if it's under the umbrella of cultural enrichment and no one is disadvantaged as a result. After all, a Protestant Monarch is no more or less accurate than a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Catholic Monarch. Each and every religion is relative to eachother because they are founded on mythology.

My own feeling is that the Monarchy should declare itself to be secular and atheist. That way it is not towing the line to any particular piece of religious hear-say. But I'm not going to make a big fuss over the issue.

Binoy Kampmark is merely being bigoted and intolerant by saying that an indiginous culture should dismantle itself just to keep some loud minorities with a 'chip-on-their shoulder' happy.
Posted by TR, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 12:49:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, there IS a problem having a Protestant monarch. In fact there are many problems having any kind of monarch (except arguably Moomba King - even then, the title could change to something less feudal).

Parasites all. Amazing that anyone could condone such universally offensive anachronism.
Posted by mil-observer, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 1:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If a benign monarch is an offensive anachronism then the clerical classes - Rabbis, Popes, and Sheiks - are an offensive anachronism x 100. Why we put up with custodians of a jealous and patriachal Bronze Age diety defies all common sense. Especially when they wield far greater power over society than any modern day Western king or queen.

The real parasites are the self appointed rulers of the Temple Mount, Vatican, and Meccan circus.
Posted by TR, Thursday, 23 April 2009 12:50:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What "benign monarch"? What planet are you on? And when do these clerics you so despise "appoint themselves" (as distinct from monarchs' inherited status and role)?

With bizarre interpretations like those of your previous post, you appear as either a sycophantic social climber and feudal butt-kisser, or just seriously confused.
Posted by mil-observer, Thursday, 23 April 2009 1:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lol Everyone knows that the clerical class is little more than a misgynist old boys club who do little more than sproat crap about up the duff virgins and chatty angelic thingos.

But the really sad thing is that billions of people hang off their every proclamation - "don't wear a condom", "stem cell research is evil", "we have a God given right to the Temple Mount", "women are wicked sex fiends for showing their hairy heads", "kill the apostate", "incarcerate the homosexual", "nick the clitoris and cut off the foreskin", "lets ruin kids science classes because evolutionary biology is wrong and Adam was a real person", "eat a pig and you go to hell for a billion or so years" blah blah blah blah. What a load of complete and utter nonsense.

Now, when was the last time that QEII or some other Western monarch impacted the lives of numerous millions of people on a moment by moment daily basis? In reality, modern monarchies are little more than quaint oil paintings. Decorative but not very useful.
Posted by TR, Thursday, 23 April 2009 7:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pathological when anti-religious obsession (and stereotyping, sensational misrepresentation, ridicule, etc.) has to keep trying to distract readers from the original topic. Most of humanity still heeds the importance of the vast and pressing moral concerns of the genuinely religious; most people in our world know that sincere, intelligent and brave religionists still speak against and beyond cults of individual greed, arrogance and narcissism, and instead for the collective, universal needs of humanity.

Let's examine it a bit more closely then...

For a start, QE2 is head of the Anglican church anyway! But the institution of monarchy is much larger too than the people born as its directly inheriting feudalists. Nonetheless, QE2 herself is the largest non-institutional investor in Rio Tinto, for example. In such institutional arrangements and its control of resources, Australians still pay much more than the official tithes to support the Anglican bureaucracy by default of their abject status as "subjects" in a constitutional monarchy. Besides, and perhaps even more absurd, QE2 and the minions still head Australia's military and police, by default.

In such blatant and subtle ways as their influence in finance, statehood, and in culture via non-stop publicity, the parasitic, primitive and snobbish qualities of feudalism affect billions of people eventually. Despite whatever good has come from some of its religious followers and office-holders, the Anglican system's inherited prejudices of feudal bloodline/"race" and religious authority all perpetuate toxic, deluded notions of birthright and esteem.

Such inherited notions of birthright and esteem appear to inform the cultish devotion of OLOers like TR. Or would TR prefer the archaic and theocratic feudal system of Lamaism - itself often uncritically celebrated as a fashion statement among western narcissists keen to claim "spiritual" credibility, but also while presuming that their imported artefact is "a religion with no God"?
Posted by mil-observer, Thursday, 23 April 2009 8:49:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy