 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / May 2006Catholic PM's
Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? Thank you. > Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? Tony Blair?  SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? > > Tony Blair? Not yet...he's leaning that way but will probably wait until he's left office. Since I posted the question I've found out that the UK has not had a RC PM, although there is no block on this. >>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >> >> Tony Blair? > > Not yet...he's leaning that way but will probably wait until he's left > office. Unless he's secretly made the switch. He attends Mass very week, he's taken Catholic Communion publicly and is strongly rumoured (by the family's priest) to be taking Communion privately despite a promise to Cardinal Hume that he wouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised to find he attends confession. Not, of course, that he has anything to confess ... > Since I posted the question I've found out that the UK has > not had a RC PM, although there is no block on this. Although there was, effectively, prior to the early 19th C. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Although there was, effectively, prior to the early 19th C. But if he were to attend one of the many High Church Anglican cermonies, he would still attend services which might be difficult to distinguish from Catholic Mass. Confession and Communion are part of the rites and ceremony. What is the problem anyway? Since few attend Christian services, it can only be a problem to few? Is this just another Moral Panic raised by the British press? "PM goes Papist!" etc. In historic terms, it hardly justifies a mention. We did not get fussed about your man Disraeli. http://iris.lib.virginia.edu/rmds/vanityfair/source/disraeli.html SignatureThur >>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > fussed about your man Disraeli. > http://iris.lib.virginia.edu/rmds/vanityfair/source/disraeli.html No problem for me...somebody was arguing with me and saying that a Catholic could not become PM...I think they are getting confused with the Act of Settlement. I did point out that we'd had a Jewish PM. > >>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > could not become PM...I think they are getting confused with the Act of > Settlement. I did point out that we'd had a Jewish PM. You are right there is nothing preventing a Catholic from becoming PM. First of all of course you'd need one to be leader of one of the major parties and win an election. Michael Ancram lost out when he ran for leadership of the Tory party. His religion was not an issue though. Seemingly John Reid now sees himself as a rival to Gordon Brown though I can't see him as PM myself. Perhaps any of these men's nationality would be a bigger issue in any general election than their religion is ever likely to be? cheers Allan >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> fussed about your man Disraeli. >> http://iris.lib.virginia.edu/rmds/vanityfair/source/disraeli.html >No problem for me...somebody was arguing with me and saying that a Catholic >could not become PM...I think they are getting confused with the Act of >Settlement. I did point out that we'd had a Jewish PM. When was that? ----- Paul J. Gans >>>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > When was that? Benjamin Disraeli was born a Jew, but joined C of E as a boy. Strictly speaking, he wasn't so much a Jewish PM but a PM with Jewish ancestry. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >> When was that? >Benjamin Disraeli was born a Jew, but joined C of E as a boy. Strictly >speaking, he wasn't so much a Jewish PM but a PM with Jewish ancestry. Almost. He was placed into the C of E by his father, raised in that church, worshipped in that church, and died in that church. But since his parents were Jewish, I guess it doesn't matter what *he* was. I'd bet that there was more than one C of E prime minister whose family roots were Catholic, even when that was a disqualification. Somehow, nobody ever brings *that* up. ----- Paul J. Gans >>Benjamin Disraeli was born a Jew, but joined C of E as a boy. Strictly >>speaking, he wasn't so much a Jewish PM but a PM with Jewish ancestry. > > Almost. He was placed into the C of E by his father, raised > in that church, worshipped in that church, and died in that > church. Almost? He was of an age for confirmation and to make the choice himself. He would have undergone baptism for "those of riper years" and answered for himself, so I think he was a willing actor in the "placement." http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/baptism/riper.html > But since his parents were Jewish, I guess it doesn't matter what > *he* was. > > I'd bet that there was more than one C of E prime minister whose > family roots were Catholic, even when that was a disqualification. > Somehow, nobody ever brings *that* up. If Roman Catholics had anything significant to do with his upbringing, I'd wager it would be. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) Gans still fails to understand that the word _Jewish_ is both a RELIGIOUS and an ETHNIC adjectival designator -- whereas the word _Catholic_ is not. DSH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) -- Great British Prime Minister Historical Facts: Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) was 12 when he was baptized on 31 July 1817. He was born on 21 December 1804, in London -- in his father, Isaac D'Israeli's home at 6 King's Road, Bedford Row, later named 22 Theobald's Road, near Gray's Inn. In _Tancred_ and other writings, as well as in casual and Parliamentary speeches, Disraeli makes it quite clear he sees himself as an Ethnic and Cultural Jew ---- no question about it. For anyone to say peremptorily, ignorantly, dismissively and arrogantly, as Gans has done, that Disraeli was NOT Jewish, is quite foolish, anserine, arrogant and Dead Wrong. Par for the course for Gans. --------------------------------------------------------------- >>Disraeli? >>Wasn't Jewish. Came from a one-time Jewish family though. Paul J. Gans -- Left-Wing New York University chemist and Let's-Pretend Historian ---------------------------------------------------------------- Disraeli was INTENSELY PROUD of his Sephardic Jewish Ancestry and RIGHTLY SO. He held the quite controversial view, for his day, that Christians owed the Jews for the foundations of their Religion because: 1. Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish. 2. Without the Jews having turned Jesus over to the Romans for judgement there could have been no Crucifixion, no Resurrection and no Atonement. ---------------------------------------- Disraeli often seems to regard Christ's Jewishness as more important than his Divinity. Disraeli is known to have referred to _YOUR Christianity_ when addressing his Parliamentary opponents on the floor of the House of Commons, during the debates over the removal of civil disabilities on the Jews. Gans, who is not a practicing Jew himself ---- but a self-confessed, cynical, desiccated, deracinated, New York, Greenwich-Village Atheist ---- is obviously quite ignorant about these important Historical Facts concerning Benjamin Disraeli. They are Historical Facts Gans has no particular interest in -- so he ignores them -- as "INCONVENIENT FACTS." Indeed, Gans even insists there are NO Historical Facts -- and has done so on numerous occasions. He's Still In Denial... Not Surprising, Not Surprising In The Least.... Gans is ignorant about all SORTS of things about which he tries to speak authoritatively. As we saw with RACE ---- and RACISTS...And Ethnic Jews. Gans Pontificates From The Pit Of Ignorance, Continuously...Never Forget It...Because he's a CHEMIST -- never a HISTORIAN. Here Are Two Of My Favorite Disraeli Quotations: "Arabs are only Jews on horseback." And: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." Benjamin Disraeli ---- Reply to a taunt by Daniel O'Connell Further: "For me there are only two bases for terming someone Jewish: they either claim to be Jewish or they practice Judaism." Paul J. Gans -- Left-Wing New York University chemist and Let's-Pretend Historian --------------------------------------- Well, Disraeli DID claim to be Jewish. I proved that: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." Benjamin Disraeli ---- Reply to a taunt by Daniel O'Connell ------------------------------------------------- SO, Gans is DEAD WRONG ---- EVEN by his OWN definitions. Hilarious! Benjamin Disraeli WAS Jewish. 'Nuff Said... D. Spencer Hines Deus Vult Sholem Aleichem Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > Gans still fails to understand that the word _Jewish_ is both a RELIGIOUS > and an ETHNIC adjectival designator -- whereas the word _Catholic_ is not. [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > Benjamin Disraeli WAS Jewish. Even after he was baptised? You'll be claiming Wellington was Irish next.... Your stupendous reserves of bitterness, stupidity and pomposity never cease to astound me David - well done! Cheers Martin > "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cheers > Martin For some reason this is finding its way to soc.history.medieval. I've removed shm from this post and removed a.h.b from my reply in shm, which poses a couple of queries on AS naming traditions to bring thread back on-topic :-) Cheers, Tom Green In soc.history.medieval D. Spencer Hines <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote: >Gans still fails to understand that the word _Jewish_ is both a RELIGIOUS >and an ETHNIC adjectival designator -- whereas the word _Catholic_ is not. Please explain the ethnic characteristics of Jews. Is it a hooked nose? Drooling at the sight of money? A swarthy compexion? What? I need to know so that I can identify them. ---- Paul J. Gans > I'd bet that there was more than one C of E prime minister whose > family roots were Catholic, even when that was a disqualification. > Somehow, nobody ever brings *that* up. > > ----- Paul J. Gans ------------------------------------------------ Let's see the Historical EVIDENCE for this assertion, a definition of "family roots" and the names of the TWO or more British Prime Ministers who fit the bill. Of course if you go back before the Reformation the "family roots" of most British Prime Ministers are _"Catholic"_. Gans needs to produce some Historical Facts proving his assertion. Vide supra. 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult > DSH > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas > > Deus Vult Bejasus. They've let him out. CJA > >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > When was that? He's talking about Disraeli. He was Jewish by birth but at the age of 12 he was baptised as an Anglican. When he actually became an MP, Jews (as in those who followed the Jewish religion) were still not allowed to sit in parliament never mind be the PM. Allan >> >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >> When was that? >He's talking about Disraeli. He was Jewish by birth but at the age of 12 he >was baptised as an Anglican. When he actually became an MP, Jews (as in >those who followed the Jewish religion) were still not allowed to sit in >parliament never mind be the PM. Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? ----- Paul J. Gans >>> >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? He does, but that fact does not help him stand out in the crowd; his Jewish background allows people to distinguish him from others. The backgrounds of Lloyd George and Ramsay MacDonald are usually remarked upon, just as the Irish roots of the Duke of Wellington (which he denied) were remarked upon. Thatcher will always be "that woman," and Ted Heath, "that Gunner." SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>> >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >> Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? >He does, but that fact does not help him stand out in the crowd; his Jewish >background allows people to distinguish him from others. The backgrounds of >Lloyd George and Ramsay MacDonald are usually remarked upon, just as the >Irish roots of the Duke of Wellington (which he denied) were remarked upon. >Thatcher will always be "that woman," and Ted Heath, "that Gunner." Of course. But I always marvel at the number of people who point to Disraeli as proof that even a Jew could become Prime Minister. Of course, all Disraeli proved was that the sins of the father were not visited on the son. By the way, it would have been impossible for Disraeli to ingnore his Jewish roots since his father was one of the more notable members of the London Jewish community and widely know -- as was his (the father's) rift with his Synagogue. ---- Paul J. Gans > >>>> >>>>> "Briton" <Mailfalger1@yahoo.co.uk(no need for Mail)> wrote in > >>>> >>>>> message news:4468be06$0$18262$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > >>>> >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? > >>>> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >>>> >> In historic terms, it hardly justifies a mention. We did not get > >>>> >> fussed about your man Disraeli. http://iris.lib.virginia.edu/rmds/vanityfair/source/disraeli.html > >>>> >No problem for me...somebody was arguing with me and saying that a > >>>Catholic [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > who point to Disraeli as proof that even a Jew could become > Prime Minister. I would say that only a Disraeli could bring it off. PM are such a small sample of any population as to make it senseless to draw conclusions from them > Of course, all Disraeli proved was that the sins of the father > were not visited on the son. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more notable members of the London Jewish community and widely > know -- as was his (the father's) rift with his Synagogue. I have rather too many Jewish relatives to get too fussed about such things -- at least not as a certified Bad Anglican (TM). SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >I think they are getting confused with the Act of > >> >Settlement. I did point out that we'd had a Jewish PM. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? Well I suppose he does as he was a Jewish Anglican! You are right to point out the difference though as the Catholic thing of course as Catholic does not refer to ethnicity as well as religion. Allan >>I think they are getting confused with the Act >of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? >Well I suppose he does as he was a Jewish Anglican! You are right to point >out the difference though as the Catholic thing of course as Catholic does >not refer to ethnicity as well as religion. Nor does Judaism, though some with rather anti-Semitic tendencies think otherwise. For example, the Disraelis were Sephardic Jews, ultimately coming from Spain, in this case, IIRC, via Holland. Their habits, customs, traditions, etc., are quite at variance with their co-religionists often termed Ashkenazi -- who primarily came from eastern Europe. They don't even have a language in common except Hebrew and perhaps the vernacular if they find themselves living in the same country. It is much like Catholics from Italy and Ireland. ---- Paul J. Gans > >> Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nor does Judaism, though some with rather anti-Semitic tendencies > think otherwise. Rather a sweeping statement surely! I would think that one would only be an anti-Semite if you objected to someone with Jewish parentage being PM, rather than just acknowledging it! COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Jewish" Of course it's theoretically possible that the Disraeli's may have been of the Jewish religion but not have Jewish ancestry. One would tend to assume not but that doesn't make one an anti-Semite. Allan Correct. DSH Deus Vult Sholem Aleichem > COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Jewish" > I'd bet that there was more than one C of E prime minister whose > family roots were Catholic, even when that was a disqualification. > Somehow, nobody ever brings *that* up. > > ----- Paul J. Gans ------------------------------------------------ Let's see the Historical EVIDENCE for this anserine assertion, a definition of "family roots" and the names of the TWO or more British Prime Ministers who fit the bill. Of course if you go back before the Reformation the "family roots" of most British Prime Ministers are _"Catholic"_. Gans needs to produce some Historical Facts proving his assertion. Vide supra. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so. Given his previous track record he will probably be too lazy and cowardly to get up off his fat tuchis and do the minimal research required. 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult Vires et Honor <snip> please keep the noise down shm posters. <snip> TROLL ALERT ----------------------- The above posting is a waste of space and bandwidth, you are requested to ignore it totally. if however you really MUST respond remove sci.military.naval from the headers. Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation. Jim: Please don't start this again. This thread was crossposted by D. Spencer Hines and by D. Spencer Hines alone. Do not blame everyone in other newsgroups for his sins. If you want to complain about him, go right ahead. But repeatedly spamming other newsgroups puts you in the same category. ---- Paul J. Gans In soc.history.medieval Jim Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote: ><snip> >please keep the noise down shm posters. ><snip> >TROLL ALERT >----------------------- >The above posting is a waste of space and bandwidth, you are >requested to ignore it totally. if however you really MUST respond >remove sci.military.naval from the headers. >Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages >only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation. > Jim: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you want to complain about him, go right ahead. But repeatedly > spamming other newsgroups puts you in the same category. Paul, if you restrict your replies to such messages to SMN, Jim Watt will pick them up there and you can thereby reduce further crossposting. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> Jim: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> If you want to complain about him, go right ahead. But repeatedly >> spamming other newsgroups puts you in the same category. >Paul, if you restrict your replies to such messages to SMN, Jim Watt will >pick them up there and you can thereby reduce further crossposting. Thanks. I'd forgotten where he dwelt. But no. I got it off my chest and I'm done with that for now. ---- Paul J. Gans >>> Jim: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > But no. I got it off my chest and I'm done > with that for now. You won't make friends in SMN, but what the hey. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>> Jim: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> But no. I got it off my chest and I'm done >> with that for now. >You won't make friends in SMN, but what the hey. Well, if they insist on spamming all newsgroups that our friend Hines crossposts to, they won't have many friends anywhere. --- Paul J. Gans >> >> Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Nor does Judaism, though some with rather anti-Semitic tendencies >> think otherwise. >Rather a sweeping statement surely! I would think that one would only be an >anti-Semite if you objected to someone with Jewish parentage being PM, >rather than just acknowledging it! >COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Jewish" You come late to this perennial discussion. One D. Spencer Hines is what's known as a "Jew sniffer". In any situation that comes up where others are named, *he* will point out who is Jewish, especially when that has nothing to do with the point being discussed. You may decide for yourself why he does that. >Of course it's theoretically possible that the Disraeli's may have been of >the Jewish religion but not have Jewish ancestry. One would tend to assume >not but that doesn't make one an anti-Semite. Not just theoretical. There are a number of converts to Judaism. And no, it does not make you an anti-Semite. See above for the genesis of my statement. ---- Paul J. Gans > >"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message > >Rather a sweeping statement surely! I would think that one would only be an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You may decide for yourself why he does that. Ah well that eejit is just one of the many eejits in my killfile. > >Of course it's theoretically possible that the Disraeli's may have been of > >the Jewish religion but not have Jewish ancestry. One would tend to assume [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And no, it does not make you an anti-Semite. See above for the > genesis of my statement. Fair dos. I got the wrong end of the stick. Which I do a lot! Allan > ---- Paul J. Gans >>> >> Exactly. But why does not not [sic] count as C of E? >>> >>>>Well I suppose he does as he was a Jewish Anglican! You are right to >>>>point out the difference though as the Catholic thing of course as >>>> Catholic does not refer to ethnicity as well as religion. Bingo! Whereas the words _Jew_ and _Jewish_ can refer to either ethnicity or religion -- or both. _Catholic_ refers only to religion. >>> Nor does Judaism, though some with rather anti-Semitic tendencies >>> think otherwise. Dead Wrong. Gans needs to get educated ASAP on the COD definition below. His anserine remarks about the Anti-Semitic tendencies of those who understand that simple fact is silly-buggers as well as maximally air-headed and offensive in the extreme and should be addressed by Gans to the editors of the COD posthaste. They will be amused at the antics of this Top Banana of USENET. He should put his letter on NYU stationery. >>Rather a sweeping statement surely! I would think that one would only be >>an anti-Semite if you objected to someone with Jewish parentage being >>PM, rather than just acknowledging it! Bingo! Gans simply tars anyone he doesn't like and who doesn't agree with his silly-buggers, offensive and anserine opinion on this matter as "Anti-Semitic" -- which reveals his deep misunderstanding of the issues involved -- as well as his malice aforethought. >>COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Jewish" > >>Of course it's theoretically possible that the Disraelis may have been of >>the Jewish religion but not have Jewish ancestry. One would tend to assume >>not but that doesn't make one an anti-Semite. Of course not. [They were of Jewish ancestry.] D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > >>> >> Exactly. But why does not not [sic] count as C of E? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bingo! Whereas the words _Jew_ and _Jewish_ can refer to either ethnicity > or religion -- or both. _Catholic_ refers only to religion. You've obviously never been to Norniron. > >>> Nor does Judaism, though some with rather anti-Semitic tendencies > >>> think otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Vires et Honor >COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Jewish" This definition is part of the Western Problem with Jews. Think about it. Do we define Catholics as "a person of Catholic descent or whose religion is Catholic"? Of course not. We do not do that with any other religious group in the world. And yet we are not even conscious of singling out Jews for what is often special mistreatment. I need not supply references. You already know them. ---- Paul J. Gans >> COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is >> Jewish" > > This definition is part of the Western Problem with Jews. Think > about it. ...are you saying that Jews themselves would not use that definiton? >>> COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is >>> Jewish" >> >> This definition is part of the Western Problem with Jews. Think >> about it. >...are you saying that Jews themselves would not use that definiton? What I am saying is that people ought to be given the right to identify themselves and not have it done for them. There is nothing wrong with referring to someone as being of Jewish descent. That, however, does not make them Jewish. They could easily be Roman Catholics. Indeed, there is a recently canonized saint, Edith Stein, who was killed by the Nazis for being "Jewish". From http://www.catholic.org: "Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) Virgin and Martyr Edith Stein, born in 1891 in Breslau, Poland, was the youngest child of a large Jewish family. She was an outstanding student and was well versed in philosophy with a particular interest in phenomenology. Eventually she became interested in the Catholic Faith, and in 1922, she was baptized at the Cathedral Church in Cologne, Germany. Eleven years later Edith entered the Cologne Carmel. Because of the ramifications of politics in Germany, Edith, whose name in religion was Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, was sent to the Carmel at Echt, Holland. When the Nazis conquered Holland, Teresa was arrested, and, with her sister Rose, was sent to the concentration camp at Auschwitz. Teresa died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz in 1942 at the age of fifty-one. In 1987, she was beatified in the Cologne cathedral by Pope John Paul II. Out of the unspeakable human suffering caused by the Nazis in western Europe in the 1930's and 1940's, there blossomed the beautiful life of dedication, consecration, prayer, fasting, and penance of Saint Teresa. Even though her life was snuffed out by the satanic evil of genocide, her memory stands as a light undimmed in the midst of evil, darkness, and suffering. She was canonized on October 11, 1998." ----- Paul J. Gans >>>> COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is >>>> Jewish" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Jewish descent. That, however, does not make them Jewish. > They could easily be Roman Catholics. Fair point. > What I am saying is that people ought to be given the right > to identify themselves and not have it done for them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clearly Fatuous, Fallacious & Farblondjet... People don't get the right to "define themselves" or "identify themselves" as they see fit. We are all defined by the societies we live in and judged and identified by our fellow citizens. Islamofascists do not get a free pass to redefine or identify themselves as "peaceful, harmless, messengers of Allah". On a different scale: >>COD......"Jew = a person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Jewish" Yes, the COD has a sound definition -- the one clearly recognized and accepted by the overwhelming majority -- both in Britain and the United States. Some folks try to change their names -- for example from _Kohn_ to _Kerry_ -- and then "redefine themselves" -- thereby fashioning a model of their own coveted dream-design. No Sale... I respect a Jew much more who keeps his name of _Krauthammer_ or _Kristol_, or _Lieberman_, or _Medved_ [bear, in Russian] or even _Gans_ [goose, in German] than I do a rampant pogue and poseur whose grandfather changes his name from _Kohn_ to _Kerry_ and then tries to masquerade and pretend he's a Boston Irishman. Thousands of others felt the same way as I did in the Presidential Election of 2004. -- They were not ready to vote for a man, John Kerry, of Jewish descent, on his father's side, who was ashamed to admit it and had the colossal gall to act surprised when the truth was outed about his fraudulent Irish Ancestry, by the Boston Globe. I would willingly have voted for Joe Lieberman for President -- a man who is by no means ashamed to admit he's a Jew -- a Real Jew -- an Orthodox Jew -- both ethnically and religiously. Indeed he is justifiably proud of his ethnic background. But the dumb-arsed Democrats were far too stupid and knee-jerk Left-Wing to nominate Senator Joe Lieberman, Yale College 1964, Yale Law School 1967 as their Presidential Candidate -- instead, choosing a rampant pogue, charlatan and poseur who tried to pose as a Boston Irishman --with Mayflower Ancestors on his mother's side [which were genuine]. Democrats = Too Late Smart. No, Virginia -- We Don't Get To Define Ourselves In Society. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor In _Tancred_ and his other writings, as well as in casual and Parliamentary speeches, Disraeli makes it quite clear he sees himself as an Ethnic and Cultural Jew ---- no question about it. For anyone to say peremptorily, ignorantly, dismissively and arrogantly, as Gans has done, that Disraeli was NOT Jewish, is quite foolish, anserine, arrogant and Dead Wrong. Par for the course for Gans. --------------------------------------------------------------- >>Disraeli? >>Wasn't Jewish. Came from a one-time Jewish family though. Paul J. Gans -- Left-Wing New York University chemist and Let's-Pretend Historian ---------------------------------------------------------------- Disraeli was INTENSELY PROUD of his Sephardic Jewish Ancestry and RIGHTLY SO. He held the quite controversial view, for his day, that Christians owed the Jews for the foundations of their Religion because: 1. Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish. 2. Without the Jews having turned Jesus over to the Romans for judgement there could have been no Crucifixion, no Resurrection and no Atonement. ---------------------------------------- Disraeli often seems to regard Christ's Jewishness as more important than his Divinity. Disraeli is known to have referred to _YOUR Christianity_ when addressing his Parliamentary opponents on the floor of the House of Commons, during the debates over the removal of civil disabilities on the Jews. Gans, who is not a practicing Jew himself ---- but a self-confessed, cynical, desiccated, deracinated, New York, Greenwich-Village Atheist ---- is obviously quite ignorant about these important Historical Facts concerning Benjamin Disraeli. They are Historical Facts Gans has no particular interest in -- so he ignores them -- as "INCONVENIENT HISTORICAL FACTS." Indeed, Gans even insists there are NO Historical Facts -- and has done so on numerous occasions. He's Still In Denial... Not Surprising, Not Surprising In The Least.... Gans is ignorant about all SORTS of things about which he tries to speak authoritatively. As we saw with RACE ---- and RACISTS...And Ethnic & Cultural Jews. Gans Pontificates From The Pit Of Ignorance, Continuously...Never Forget It...Because he's a CHEMIST -- never a HISTORIAN. Here Are Two Of My Favorite Disraeli Quotations: "Arabs are only Jews on horseback." And: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." Benjamin Disraeli ---- Reply to a taunt by Daniel O'Connell Further: "For me there are only two bases for terming someone Jewish: they either claim to be Jewish or they practice Judaism." Paul J. Gans -- Left-Wing New York University chemist and Let's-Pretend Historian --------------------------------------- Well, Disraeli DID claim to be Jewish. I proved that: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." Benjamin Disraeli ---- Reply to a taunt by Daniel O'Connell ------------------------------------------------- SO, Gans is DEAD WRONG ---- EVEN by his OWN definitions. Hilarious! Benjamin Disraeli WAS Jewish. But Gans Is Ignorant Of That Historical Fact... 'Nuff Said... D. Spencer Hines Deus Vult Sholem Aleichem Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >... Catholic does not refer to ethnicity as well as religion. > > Allan Correct! However, _Jewish_ DOES refer to both Ethnicity and Religion and Disraeli realized that -- whereas Gans still does not. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor <snip> <snip> TROLL ALERT ----------------------- The above posting is a waste of space and bandwidth, you are requested to ignore it totally. if however you really MUST respond remove sci.military.naval from the headers. Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation. > For anyone to say peremptorily, ignorantly, dismissively and arrogantly, as > Gans has done, that Disraeli was NOT Jewish, is quite foolish, > anserine, arrogant and Dead Wrong. Ignorant people like yourself tend to be so self-important that they jump in to criticise without appreciating the circumstances of the discussion. before you rudely interrupted we were talking about the restrictions on British Public life of the religion of the potential office holder. Their cultural background may be of interest to the discussion but it is not the point in question as the restrictions only came into force in respect of the formal religious adherence of the people involved. In what is under discussion Disraeli was not Jewish despite his cultural, family or emotional involvement. Discussion here recently has been interesting, relevant and without rancour. That's because you have been absent. Go and be absent again. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing John Cartmell @ john@cartmell.demon.co.uk >> anserine, arrogant and Dead Wrong. > Discussion here recently has been interesting, relevant and without > rancour. That's because you have been absent. Go and be absent again. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor. SignatureMoses Lambert PO1(SW) USN(ret) Prothonotary Wibbler, Paleoconservative, Surface Warrior Squid, Aristocidal Philosoph; Hard drive scanned - all stolen software deleted - police on their way Didn't Disraeli convert to christianity (I'm not sure which denomination)? SignatureDoug > In _Tancred_ and his other writings, as well as in casual and > Parliamentary speeches, Disraeli makes it quite clear he sees himself as [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > Vires et Honor > Didn't Disraeli convert to christianity (I'm not sure which denomination)? Yes and he became an Anglican although his piety was and is subject to debate :) Keith >> Didn't Disraeli convert to christianity (I'm not sure which >> denomination)? > > Yes and he became an Anglican although his piety was > and is subject to debate :) And this would make him different from the rest of the Anglican communion how? :^) SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>> Didn't Disraeli convert to christianity (I'm not sure which >>> denomination)? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And this would make him different from the rest of the Anglican communion > how? :^) Not much in many cases although Gladstone was known for his evangeising of 'fallen women' , at least that was his story :) Keith > Didn't Disraeli convert to christianity (I'm not sure which denomination)? His father had him baptised as a Christian, thus, he didn't convert. >>>>>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? This note from the UK Parliament site (I link to the cached version since the original is a pdf) is of interest: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:npGg2ulAn-QJ:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/ research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf+%22british+prime+ministers%22+catholic&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=7 http://tinyurl.com/jgs7w SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>>>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> >> Exactly. But why does not not count as C of E? >This note from the UK Parliament site (I link to the cached version since >the original is a pdf) is of interest: >http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:npGg2ulAn-QJ:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/ research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf+%22british+prime+ministers%22+catholic&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=7 >http://tinyurl.com/jgs7w Thanks. That's rather interesting. I note that Disraeli is dealt with in passing last paragraph of Section 3. As the document is at least semi-official, being plucked from the UK House of Commons Parliamentary web site, I think that it forms a suitable end to the discussion. ----- Paul J. Gans Gans now wants to shut the discussion down -- as if this were his class and he controlled the discussion. Hilarious! He is also clearly running away from this other anserine statement, which he made previously: > I'd bet that there was more than one C of E prime minister whose > family roots were Catholic, even when that was a disqualification. > Somehow, nobody ever brings *that* up. > > ----- Paul J. Gans Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this -- Enjoy! DSH ---------------------------------------------- >>http://tinyurl.com/jgs7w > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ----- Paul J. Gans >>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? ..... >What is the problem anyway? >Since few attend Christian services, it can only be a problem to >few? >Is this just another Moral Panic raised by the British press? >"PM goes Papist!" etc. >In historic terms, it hardly justifies a mention. Am I not right in assuming that a Roman Catholic PM would be bound to recognize the validity of Pius V's bull /Regnans in Excelsis/ of 1570 deposing Elizabeth I and absolving her subjects from their natural allegiance to her? He would also presumably have to accept the ability of the present Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK Parliament. >>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >..... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK >Parliament. And then he would declare the Earth flat and canonise John Prescott. >>>>>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>..... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK >>Parliament. >And then he would declare the Earth flat and canonise John Prescott. Yeah. We had the same objections to a Catholic President in the US. Folks forget that Kennedy had to run in the face of that. ------ Paul J. Gans > >>He would also presumably have to accept the ability of the present > >>Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah. We had the same objections to a Catholic President in the > US. Folks forget that Kennedy had to run in the face of that. What objections though? I don't feel any real sense of popular opposition to Blair becoming a Catholic. I honestly don't think it is an issue with the populace apart from the fact that anything the PM does is newsworthy. In fact any opposition seems to be, if anything, coming from the Catholic Church itself. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article0,,2-1310733,00.html Allan >> >>He would also presumably have to accept the ability of the present >> >>Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Yeah. We had the same objections to a Catholic President in the >> US. Folks forget that Kennedy had to run in the face of that. >What objections though? I don't feel any real sense of popular opposition to >Blair becoming a Catholic. I honestly don't think it is an issue with the >populace apart from the fact that anything the PM does is newsworthy. In >fact any opposition seems to be, if anything, coming from the Catholic >Church itself. >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article0,,2-1310733,00.html I think we are mixing subjects. I was talking about the problems Kennedy had to face in the US being Catholic. The charges that he would take orders from the Pope were among those tossed around. They were nonsense, of course. And of course he won the election anyway. But the remains of American anti-Catholic bigotry were still visible then. ---- Paul J. Gans > >> >>He would also presumably have to accept the ability of the present > >> >>Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think we are mixing subjects. I was talking about the > problems Kennedy had to face in the US being Catholic. And you referred to them as the "same objections" which seemed to suggest you thought there were significant objections in Britain. If you didn't mean that then sorry for being cofused. Allan >> >> >>He would also presumably have to accept the ability of the present >> >> >>Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> I think we are mixing subjects. I was talking about the >> problems Kennedy had to face in the US being Catholic. >And you referred to them as the "same objections" which seemed to suggest >you thought there were significant objections in Britain. If you didn't mean >that then sorry for being cofused. >Allan I was referring to the statement, still upstream: "He [Blair] would also presumably have to accept the ability of the present Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK Parliament." and noting that Kennedy had to face similar idiocies when he ran. No, I do not think them signficant objections. Indeed, I consider them rather inflammatory and prejudiced. ---- Paul J. Gans > Am I not right in assuming that a Roman Catholic PM would be bound to > recognize the validity of Pius V's bull /Regnans in Excelsis/ of 1570 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pope to depose Elizabeth II regardless of any decision of the UK > Parliament. Why? Elizabeth II is not even a descendent of Elizabeth I. Plus the kingdom that Elizabeth I ruled no longer exists as a kingdom. The succession to the monarchy of Great Britain and later the UK was laid out in the Act of Union between Scotland and England in 1707. Besides it's irrelevant. There is no constitutional bar to a Catholic becoming PM. If an individual Catholic thought the constitution of the UK was a bar to him taking the post then that's a seperate matter. Allan >>>> Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > attends confession. Not, of course, that he has anything to confess > ... It's all mumbo jumbo to me. >> Since I posted the question I've found out that the UK has >> not had a RC PM, although there is no block on this. > Although there was, effectively, prior to the early 19th C. Could you expand on that? > Could you expand on that? The 16th and 17th centuries confirmed that Catholics were traitors - even those who didn't intend to be had their status undermined by fellow Catholics and the Pope. That led to restrictions on Catholics that were only gradually removed. A full expansion would cover the history of the British Isles from the end of the 15th Century to today. Maybe you'd be best reading a good book (or two, or three, or even many more! ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? It appears not (cf. other posts.) Relevant points are: 1. The Church of England at least nominally has as members most of the British population (approx. 75 per cent, including non-beliers.) 2. The C of E is the state church, established by Act of Parliament: thus the Queen is its statutory head and appoints bishops. The work of selecting candidates for episcopal vacancies (to propose a short list to the Queen) is done by the prime minister's staff (not by the archbishops' staff: church dignatories are nowadays consulted, of course.) But it is the PM who nominally presents the short list to the Queen with recommendations. Dissenter PMs (LLoyd George and Ramsay Macdonald) appear to have done this without compunction, but a Catholic church member might find himself at odds with Catholic doctrine about church authoriity -- not to mention anti-Catholic clauses among the Thirtynine Articles. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Act of Parliament: thus the Queen is its statutory > head and appoints bishops. The Church of England is not the state church of the UK though. As far as the UK goes it is the established church in England. The CofE was disestablished in Wales in 1920. It never was an established church in Ireland. The Church of Scotland is recognised as the established church in Scotland though it differs in that it is independent from parliament. Allan >Has Britain had any and if so...who are they? > >Thank you. This question will pale into insignificance when we get our first muslim Prime Minister. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.