Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
*waves*
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Here's Some Unexpected Informacion
- Thread starter Tumah
- Start date
*waves*
Dang...I'd always wanted to rule over the Maldives.
Sourcestershire.
Christians? I thought you left this behind!
Buddhists? You're supposed to be the good guys!
(Before they sink under the rising seas.)
didn't but do now. Sorry if that disappoints you, but at least I learned.
It's a point of shame to me as a Canadian that our office of head of state is linked to the office of head of a church.It is mentioned in the source that the UK has a religious requirement for its "Ceremonial Monarch". Specifically it styles the Queen as the "Defender of the Faith".
Here's what it says about that.
Why does she need to be Protestant? I thought the UK had their own version of Catholicism?
Fun fact: the title "Defender of the Faith" was bestowed on Henry VIII by the Pope (before the whole schism thing).
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't see why it should make a difference. Its a position that has no authority. It seems more cultural to me than anything.
ukok102nak
Active Member
as they say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
therefore
theres nothin unexpected
about having a leader base on the culture of its people
and
even having a faith
similar unto its people
as long as that leader is doing the right thing to its people
and to his god
what is unexpected
is to have a leader who has
no religion
but
still doin the best thing as he could for the sake of his people and his country
by the way
is it possible to have a leader that has a different religion compared to the majority of its people
for example
a person who migrated to a certain country and became a citizen of that country
then expand his connection to the so called politics
after that been elected as a leader of some country where
the majority are the jewish people though his religion is base on muslim's belief
. ... just for a thought
if we say so ... .
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
It's largely symbolic (though not completely - there have been a few times when the Queen's limited power has mattered)... but:
- the symbolism is still negative.
- it's still a position drawing a government salary.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't think the symbolism is negative. It represents Britain's cultural history. Its not like their waving flags with pictures of York tower.
It might draw a government salary, but the government also pays to upkeep other cultural things. I don't see a difference. And like other cultural things, this probably helps the tourist industry by a large margin. I mean, besides for the queen, what else is there to see in England unless you really like rain?
The symbolism is that if you're born into the right family you get the spoils of empire handed to you on a plate from the day of your birth.
There's a lot of other stuff to see.
Tumah
Veteran Member
That sounds like an argument for Robin Hood. Hundreds if not thousands of people are born into wealthy families daily.
Double-decker buses don't count.
ukok102nak
Active Member
unexpectedlyuntil now theres no guarantee
that a symbol will show up from the sky
during rainy season
for as they say
after the great rain then a rainbow shall appear
though
not every culture in this planet is paying attention unto their surroundings
also
they keep on saying this things
"He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.
As a lamb before his shearer is silent,
so he does not open his mouth.
In his humiliation, justice was taken away.
Who will declare His generation?
For his life is taken from the earth."
probably
somehow someone could anticipate the next question
regarding the unexpected information
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
Britain's cultural history. I'm Canadian; we have four "founding peoples" (British, French, First Nations, Métis). The monarchy only represents one of them.
And as an institution, the monarchy has blood on its hands. While the current monarch hasn't killed any of my family, many of my ancestors were slaughtered on the order of the King on more than one occasion. The "cultural history" that the monarchy represents includes ethnic cleansing and genocide, both in the British Isles and here in North America. I don't think this is the sort of thing that we should celebrate... at least not as an official act of the government it's supposed to represent.
People generally don't see the Queen when they visit Britain - they see Buckingham Palace. Abolishing the monarchy would probably make it easier for tourists, like what the French have done at Versailles.
Anyhow, I'm talking about my own country's monarchy. Nobody visits Canada to see the Queen unless she's here on some tour... and we don't need her to be our head of state to tour here (as evidenced by all the times that Elizabeth has visited countries where she isn't head of state).
No, it's an argument for participatory democracy. Full democracy.
That is really not much...
I basically agree. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding running around about what separation of church and state is and what it can and should be.
Of course religious beliefs will have political consequences. How could that possibly not be the case? If anything, people should be encouraged to be open and frank about their beliefs and how they inform their political stances.
What should be curbed is instead the assumption that allegiance to a religious movement gives that movement the authority to speak on behalf of the people politically. People must be allowed to express their political thoughts directly without intervention of the church.
The most necessary consequence is that political instruments (laws and the like) ought to never once reference religious concepts as such, and above all never attempt to justify themselves based on adherence or avoidance of any religious creeds. No "fear of God" nonsense, no specific privileges or forbiddances according to beliefs.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You rang?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
But it's all we have.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I
Like it or not the American and Uk common law has a common source. It is based on the beliefs ethics and ancient law of a people who accepted christian church law teaching as supreme, they knew no alternative.
Along side this common law, new laws were developed by kings and governments who were themselves Christian and steeped in christian Ideals. It is only comparatively recently that other religions and other concepts have been added to the mix. Legislators in both countries are by and large majority from a christian background.
It is impossibe to remove this influence, nor would many people want to see this ethic replaced by something else, certainly not a muslim one or a purely commercial one.
How ever they still shy away from the thought of christian interference.
Sara Thinks
Member
Are you ignoring the atrocities done by Buddhists to the innocent minority rohingyas?
Shockingly, they back up their crime with their own belief!
Is this really a religion of peace?
on a shorter note, if you don't know about the rohingyas
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes knew there was violence among the so called Buddhist, off shots and those calling themselves Buddhist, do you really believe they are true Buddhist, are the people who kill innocent people and call themselves Muslims really Muslims, you should know better than point to other religions doing wrong.