You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either.
Yes you do.
You really dont.
Henry VIII proved you can pretty much just decide what religion you want to be if you are King. Whats going to happen? You'll get fired? hahaha
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
You do know that being King or Queen isn't an elected position?
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either. The British royal family just happen to be protestant. I'm pretty sure if the Queen decided she wanted to be Muslim, she wouldn't lose her title of Queen. Royalty is decided by bloodline, so this is about the worst example you could have made....
I'm afraid you're wrong. The Act of Settlement prohibits a non-Protestant from taking the throne of Britain, or from marrying the monarch.
It doesn't change anything - The Act of Settlement is shitty, and the actions of the Israeli Government are also shitty.
for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
By this, do you mean "would they have banned a Jewish party that opposed the war?"
I don't want to get too specific with the reasoning, because some of ya'll think the main thing was the war- some of ya'll think this is more a "I've been waiting a long time to set back the Arabs..." kind of thing in general, etc. Whatever you think the main motive was- the main "why we have to get 'dem 'dere Arab parties out da' way", if an all Jewish party presented the exact same 'conflict' with the ruling party's interests, would they have been banned as well?
Well aren't there some pretty liberal Jewish parties to?
There are several parties that could be considered "left of center" but none that really capture the essence of the Arab parties. Most of the parties that do advocate a 'softer' resolution to the conflict almost always throw in hock loads of Jewish despotism to accompany it.
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either.
Yes you do.
You really dont.
Henry VIII proved you can pretty much just decide what religion you want to be if you are King. Whats going to happen? You'll get fired? hahaha
Parliament gets involved if it cares. It doesn't, but that is only because the King has no power and is pretty much a tourist attraction. If he or she did have power, they would care. That is the reason they required the king or queen to be Protestant under a bill of rights in the 1600s. Parliament often got rather pissy when the kings started to flirt with Catholicism. For example, one of the grievances that helped cause the English Civil War was the marriage of the king to a Catholic woman. The next king was forced to deal with fears that a Catholic would inherit the thrown by having a relative marry some protestant guy.
for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
By this, do you mean "would they have banned a Jewish party that opposed the war?"
I don't want to get too specific with the reasoning, because some of ya'll think the main thing was the war- some of ya'll think this is more a "I've been waiting a long time to set back the Arabs..." kind of thing in general, etc. Whatever you think the main motive was- the main "why we have to get 'dem 'dere Arab parties out da' way", if an all Jewish party presented the exact same 'conflict' with the ruling party's interests, would they have been banned as well?
Well aren't there some pretty liberal Jewish parties to?
From what I can gather, Meretz-Yachad are against the war. Hell, they want to give the Palestinians their own state, dismantle Israeli settlements in the Bank, and ensure rights of Arabs living in Israel.
His Corkiness on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Wait, why are we so confused about the Israeli parliament being able to ignore it's supreme court?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
Or are we not confused, but just generally angry.
Not true at all. The Canadian Supreme Court can certainly tell the Parliament thing it's not allowed to do.
Canada hasn't been a parliamentary supremacist parliamentary democracy since the Charter. We're an exception.
for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
By this, do you mean "would they have banned a Jewish party that opposed the war?"
I don't want to get too specific with the reasoning, because some of ya'll think the main thing was the war- some of ya'll think this is more a "I've been waiting a long time to set back the Arabs..." kind of thing in general, etc. Whatever you think the main motive was- the main "why we have to get 'dem 'dere Arab parties out da' way", if an all Jewish party presented the exact same 'conflict' with the ruling party's interests, would they have been banned as well?
Well aren't there some pretty liberal Jewish parties to?
From what I can gather, Meretz-Yachad are against the war. Hell, they want to give the Palestinians their own state, dismantle Israeli settlements in the Bank, and ensure rights of Arabs living in Israel.
Yep.
In general, Meretz-Yachad is the party that most of PA would support in a given election. Pro welfare state, pro LGBT rights, pro affirmative action, etc.
Wait, why are we so confused about the Israeli parliament being able to ignore it's supreme court?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
Wait, why are we so confused about the Israeli parliament being able to ignore it's supreme court?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
Or are we not confused, but just generally angry.
Not true at all. The Canadian Supreme Court can certainly tell the Parliament thing it's not allowed to do.
Canada (Justice) vs. Khadr would like to have a word with you.
Morgenstern on
“Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
You do know that being King or Queen isn't an elected position?
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either. The British royal family just happen to be protestant. I'm pretty sure if the Queen decided she wanted to be Muslim, she wouldn't lose her title of Queen. Royalty is decided by bloodline, so this is about the worst example you could have made....
I'm afraid you're wrong. The Act of Settlement prohibits a non-Protestant from taking the throne of Britain, or from marrying the monarch.
It doesn't change anything - The Act of Settlement is shitty, and the actions of the Israeli Government are also shitty.
Actually the Bill of Rights did that, all the Act of Settlement did was just establish that the next king would be from the Hannoverian familly as William and Mary had no heirs.
I hold the Israeli population at large responsible for this measure because it notes that the committee that banned the Arab parties isn't just ultra-nationalists.
It says that the committee is "composed of representatives from Israel's major political parties. The measure was proposed by two ultranationalist parties but received widespread support."
I don't see how this can't be seen as a direct response of the Israeli people, through their political parties, to the current conflict.
And I do think that it's racism. Taking away self-representation is an extremely important way to subjugate a group.
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either.
Yes you do.
And the minute it becomes an issue, it will be changed.
It did become an issue, there was a proposed bill against it, and it was quashed.
Stop imagining the UK Monarchy is a lovely fluffy thing which doesn't discriminate.
When did this happen?
It's too tangential. Read the wiki.
Topic, onwards!
All I found was a challege just on general "This is probably a bad idea" grounds.
Which means it never actually became an issue.
Succession laws are insane and generally get made up as the go along anyway.
Like how in the Channel islands (the last remaining part of the old Duchy of Normandy in English hands), the queen is known as the Duke of Normandy, because the succession law stated that only a Duke could inherit the title, and that Duchesses are prohibited.
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
You do know that being King or Queen isn't an elected position?
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either. The British royal family just happen to be protestant. I'm pretty sure if the Queen decided she wanted to be Muslim, she wouldn't lose her title of Queen. Royalty is decided by bloodline, so this is about the worst example you could have made....
I'm afraid you're wrong. The Act of Settlement prohibits a non-Protestant from taking the throne of Britain, or from marrying the monarch.
It doesn't change anything - The Act of Settlement is shitty, and the actions of the Israeli Government are also shitty.
So you think if the Queen decides tomorrow that she is a Muslim/Catholic or anything but Protestant, she will be dethroned? Dont be a retard. Royalty is decided by bloodline or violent overthrow.
Since nobody cares to overthrow the monarchy anymore because they have no actual power, option B isn't going to happen.
Acts and bills saying you have to be Protestant to take the throne aren't much good once you have the throne. I'd love to see Parliament attempt to dictate which religion one must follow. I seriously doubt that would stand up.
Wait, why are we so confused about the Israeli parliament being able to ignore it's supreme court?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
Or are we not confused, but just generally angry.
Not true at all. The Canadian Supreme Court can certainly tell the Parliament thing it's not allowed to do.
Canada hasn't been a parliamentary supremacist parliamentary democracy since the Charter. We're an exception.
Not really that exceptional. The High Court in Australia has similar powers. A large proportion of the cases heard by the High Court deal with whether laws are constitutionally valid, or with the extent of the powers of State and Federal Governments.
So you think if the Queen decides tomorrow that she is a Muslim/Catholic or anything but Protestant, she will be dethroned? Dont be a retard. Royalty is decided by bloodline or violent overthrow.
There are a bunch of things that decide royalty. Who becomes king is decided by the succession system that varies between countries. Religion is often one of them. There are also various other requirements that also depend on the culture. Chances of there being a female ruler of Saudi Arabia for a long while is really fuckin' low.
If the Queen decided she would begin to act as a judge and create new courts by herself, she would be dethroned. The only reason they wouldn't dethrone her if she converted is because they don't give a shit about it any longer.
So you think if the Queen decides tomorrow that she is a Muslim/Catholic or anything but Protestant, she will be dethroned? Dont be a retard. Royalty is decided by bloodline or violent overthrow.
It would be an issue because the monarch is technically the head of the Church of England.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (the de facto head of the Church) is apparently not opposed to the Church being disestablished. In which case, I'm sure nobody in England would give a stuff anymore about the King or Queen's religion.
Just a note, when talking about Hamas: I know it kind of isn't a big deal, but calling them anti-Semitic means they don't like Arabs either, because Arabs are Semites. I saw a few posts saying "Hamas are anti-Semitic" and I just wanted to say that little fact real quick :X
Just a note, when talking about Hamas: I know it kind of isn't a big deal, but calling them anti-Semitic means they don't like Arabs either, because Arabs are Semites. I saw a few posts saying "Hamas are anti-Semitic" and I just wanted to say that little fact real quick :X
Yes. We've gone over it before that "Anti-Semite" is nigh-meaningless here.
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
Unless I am mistaken the King or Queen is also the head of the Anglican church? That would be akin to suggesting the Pope shouldn't be Roman Catholic.
Just a note, when talking about Hamas: I know it kind of isn't a big deal, but calling them anti-Semitic means they don't like Arabs either, because Arabs are Semites. I saw a few posts saying "Hamas are anti-Semitic" and I just wanted to say that little fact real quick :X
Yes. We've gone over it before that "Anti-Semite" is nigh-meaningless here.
We've also been over the fact that whatever the original meaning of "semite" is, anti-semitism is used to refer to the hatred of Jews. In common use, it has nothing to do with Arabs.
Focusing too much on the original meaning of words kinda derails things.
Semite colloquially means 'Jewish Person'.
It's like when people have debates about racism and some pedant starts going on about how 'the KKK aren't really racist because race is a socially constructed concept anyway.'
Holy crap. Okay, after all this I don't really see how Israel's goverment is all that better then Hamas.
Because Jews are proto-Christians while Muslims are heathens!
And the rapture's a-comin'!
You know, it's kind of funny - doesn't Jesus still have a relatively important place in Islam? I mean, his birth is like God's final revelation and he is one of the most important prophets. I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to side with the guys who have some sort of an acceptance of the guy.
Where did the good old "Jews killed Christ! Rabblerabblerabble!" go anyway? 9/11?
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
Twenty percent of the population of Israel is made up of Arab fucking Muslims.
You could have said the same thing about South Africa in the eighties ("It's supposed to be a country entirely defined by being for white people. Obviously, they don't want their white homeland to become a black country simply because more black people live there than white people. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain race from government...") and it would have been equally ridiculous, especially coming from a country which accused Jimmy Carter of being a Nazi for comparing them to South Africa.
You don't get to tell a bunch of people in your country that they don't get representation just because you're a fucking bigot. At least, you don't get to do it and still claim to be a democracy.
I'd say you've crossed the line when you define yourself as an Ethnic State.
It's like if the US decided it was a white country and was going to do everything it could to keep blacks/asians/latinos/etc in the minority.
shryke on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2009
So what's the deal with MSM on this shit? I've read two major newspapers today, not a mention. I also cannot find it on CNN... It's not considered news that Israel ridded itself of that hideous "democracy" thing? Really?
Posts
You really dont.
Henry VIII proved you can pretty much just decide what religion you want to be if you are King. Whats going to happen? You'll get fired? hahaha
And the minute it becomes an issue, it will be changed.
I'm afraid you're wrong. The Act of Settlement prohibits a non-Protestant from taking the throne of Britain, or from marrying the monarch.
It doesn't change anything - The Act of Settlement is shitty, and the actions of the Israeli Government are also shitty.
It did become an issue, there was a proposed bill against it, and it was quashed.
Stop imagining the UK Monarchy is a lovely fluffy thing which doesn't discriminate.
There are several parties that could be considered "left of center" but none that really capture the essence of the Arab parties. Most of the parties that do advocate a 'softer' resolution to the conflict almost always throw in hock loads of Jewish despotism to accompany it.
Parliament gets involved if it cares. It doesn't, but that is only because the King has no power and is pretty much a tourist attraction. If he or she did have power, they would care. That is the reason they required the king or queen to be Protestant under a bill of rights in the 1600s. Parliament often got rather pissy when the kings started to flirt with Catholicism. For example, one of the grievances that helped cause the English Civil War was the marriage of the king to a Catholic woman. The next king was forced to deal with fears that a Catholic would inherit the thrown by having a relative marry some protestant guy.
It's a monarchy, of course it fucking discriminates.
When did this happen?
From what I can gather, Meretz-Yachad are against the war. Hell, they want to give the Palestinians their own state, dismantle Israeli settlements in the Bank, and ensure rights of Arabs living in Israel.
Canada hasn't been a parliamentary supremacist parliamentary democracy since the Charter. We're an exception.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's too tangential. Read the wiki.
Topic, onwards!
Yep.
In general, Meretz-Yachad is the party that most of PA would support in a given election. Pro welfare state, pro LGBT rights, pro affirmative action, etc.
Israel is supposed to have a codified constitution, but they haven't gotten around to finishing it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel
Canada (Justice) vs. Khadr would like to have a word with you.
Actually the Bill of Rights did that, all the Act of Settlement did was just establish that the next king would be from the Hannoverian familly as William and Mary had no heirs.
Edit: Beaten.
It says that the committee is "composed of representatives from Israel's major political parties. The measure was proposed by two ultranationalist parties but received widespread support."
I don't see how this can't be seen as a direct response of the Israeli people, through their political parties, to the current conflict.
And I do think that it's racism. Taking away self-representation is an extremely important way to subjugate a group.
All I found was a challege just on general "This is probably a bad idea" grounds.
Which means it never actually became an issue.
Succession laws are insane and generally get made up as the go along anyway.
Like how in the Channel islands (the last remaining part of the old Duchy of Normandy in English hands), the queen is known as the Duke of Normandy, because the succession law stated that only a Duke could inherit the title, and that Duchesses are prohibited.
So you think if the Queen decides tomorrow that she is a Muslim/Catholic or anything but Protestant, she will be dethroned? Dont be a retard. Royalty is decided by bloodline or violent overthrow.
Since nobody cares to overthrow the monarchy anymore because they have no actual power, option B isn't going to happen.
Acts and bills saying you have to be Protestant to take the throne aren't much good once you have the throne. I'd love to see Parliament attempt to dictate which religion one must follow. I seriously doubt that would stand up.
Not really that exceptional. The High Court in Australia has similar powers. A large proportion of the cases heard by the High Court deal with whether laws are constitutionally valid, or with the extent of the powers of State and Federal Governments.
If the Queen decided she would begin to act as a judge and create new courts by herself, she would be dethroned. The only reason they wouldn't dethrone her if she converted is because they don't give a shit about it any longer.
It would be an issue because the monarch is technically the head of the Church of England.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (the de facto head of the Church) is apparently not opposed to the Church being disestablished. In which case, I'm sure nobody in England would give a stuff anymore about the King or Queen's religion.
... but this is all very much off-topic.
Yes. We've gone over it before that "Anti-Semite" is nigh-meaningless here.
Because Jews are proto-Christians while Muslims are heathens!
And the rapture's a-comin'!
Unless I am mistaken the King or Queen is also the head of the Anglican church? That would be akin to suggesting the Pope shouldn't be Roman Catholic.
We've also been over the fact that whatever the original meaning of "semite" is, anti-semitism is used to refer to the hatred of Jews. In common use, it has nothing to do with Arabs.
Semite colloquially means 'Jewish Person'.
It's like when people have debates about racism and some pedant starts going on about how 'the KKK aren't really racist because race is a socially constructed concept anyway.'
You know, it's kind of funny - doesn't Jesus still have a relatively important place in Islam? I mean, his birth is like God's final revelation and he is one of the most important prophets. I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to side with the guys who have some sort of an acceptance of the guy.
Where did the good old "Jews killed Christ! Rabblerabblerabble!" go anyway? 9/11?
What happens now? I've never paid too much attention to the conflict because it always looked like both sides were being dicks and it would never end.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
You could have said the same thing about South Africa in the eighties ("It's supposed to be a country entirely defined by being for white people. Obviously, they don't want their white homeland to become a black country simply because more black people live there than white people. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain race from government...") and it would have been equally ridiculous, especially coming from a country which accused Jimmy Carter of being a Nazi for comparing them to South Africa.
You don't get to tell a bunch of people in your country that they don't get representation just because you're a fucking bigot. At least, you don't get to do it and still claim to be a democracy.
But Israel gets a free pass because...speshul Jewish state?
It's like if the US decided it was a white country and was going to do everything it could to keep blacks/asians/latinos/etc in the minority.