Who better to provide a Thought for the Day this morning on the wicked centuries of oppression and discrimination against British Roman Catholics as a consequence of the 1701 Act of Settlement than Catherine Pepinster, editor of the Catholic weekly, The Tablet?
BIAS FOR THE DAY!
Bookmark the permalink.
Benedict busy?
Have just checked out the march’s coverage on both the Beeb and SkyMadeUpNewsAndFilth and ofcourse, ofcourse they had to interview Socialist Workers, NUS and ejeets with aims nothing at all to do with now.
Why are you marching today? Err.. to get you sacked for a start.
Michael Nazir-Ali is stepping down as the Bishop of Rochester.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathanwynnejones/blog/2009/03/28/bishop_of_rochester_is_stepping_down
“…his decision has almost certainly been influenced by the dismay he feels at the direction that the Church of England has taken under Rowan Williams.”
It should be the pathetic Archdhimmi of Canterbury who resigns, not the brave Nazir-Ali.
And this so soon after Brown’s comments about the monarchy. What an amazing coincidence !
Any guesses where all this is leading ?
DB 12:22
Yes it is terrible that a good man has to resign and the bad man stays.
But, how typical of modern Britain.
David Vance
I think you are in danger of devaluing the idea of BBC bias if you apply it to the perfectly reasonable decision to broadcast the views of a leading Catholic commentator on an issue that involves Catholics.
Personally, I would have preferred to hear Damian Thompson of the Catholic Herald, but Pepinster will do for the moment.
I am pleasantly surprised by this as the BBC is generally anti-Catholic.
Their usual thing would have been to put up one of their token Sikhs, Hindoos, or even a Muslim to address the subject in a round-about, multicultural sort of way.
the MP proposing the ending of the discrimination is also anti-catholic so I smell a rat. As both a women and a Catholic his suggestion that I am offended by the act is nonsense. I am more offended by someone claiming to be act on my behalf when is he most certainly not.
When can we expect a debate in the House of Commons on an end to discrimination against Catholics and women in the Muslim faith in the UK? Why not a full scale debate on BBC where people other than Muslims take apart this pre medieval system of discrimination and subjugation of people and make mock of its origins and basis?
If it is good enough for our monarchy and Christianity then why not this alien religion?
How about a weekly BBC news item detailing the numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims murdered by Muslims together with alleged atrocities by Muslims cited by all and sundry without the BBC bothering to make any checks as to veracity- a balance against all the similar allegations made, duly accepted, and made headline news about Israelis?
It seems an inherent contradiction for these “leading Catholic commentators” to condemn the discrimination against Catholics in the laws of succession yet defend the monarchy’s role as Head of the Church of England. Yet the one follows from the other. The reason for the Act of Settlement was not simply anti-papal bigotry but the fact that you could not have the head of one church who owed a personal alliegance to the head of another (who like the British sovereign is also a temporal ruler, albeit his domain is a considerably shrunken one).
Get rid of the discrimination against Catholics by all means but disestablish the C of E as well which is the reason for the discrimination in the first place. Of course the BBC does not want to highlight or even mention this line of argument because if the C of E is privatised what other public institution established by state edict might come under scrutiny and their right to public largesse questioned? No prizes for guessing.
I think the BBC should have got the Patriarch of Alexandria on the line. He’s a Pope too. Why is it always the RCs that get first looking when there’s any anti-popery afoot.
This is clear discrimination by the BBC against Copts !
I agree with Dyoung and smell a rat. Catholics are more worried about the attack on Faith Schools and the pro abortion agenda of this parliament than the fact that they cant become a monarch! This lib dem MP supports the ending of faith schools/ abortion and stem cell research, I just wonder if he is just trying to curry favour with the catholics in his constituency?
‘Mail’
James Slack:
[Extract]:
“The Prime Minister believes the Act is an ‘anomaly that has no place in the 21st century’, Downing Street sources said last night.
But who, precisely, does he think he is standing up for – if not the Guardianistas and equalities industry?
“Right Reverend Kieron Conry, a senior Roman Catholic Bishop, said the issue was not a major concern, adding: ‘We haven’t really been exercised by it much at all’.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165272/JAMES-SLACK-What-fun-Left-cannon-ball-history.html
I gather Cameron is favourable to change. Has he no sense of conservatism?
Speaking on Channel 4 news last night David Starkey however offered a vibrant defence of the status quo vis a vis the monarch’s role as head of the Church of England. But he wasn’t fussed about ending the priority given to male heirs ending.
He added that although an atheist he was an Anglican and praised that church’s moderation in matters religious.
C4 News also had Daniel Hannon on on Thursday with Dolly Draper snarling.
DB 12:22 pm
Yes; this seems to be the context: the dhimmi Rowan Williams and the C of E:
“MP attacks ‘PC’ Church leadership”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7968304.stm
and this from a government that enacted legislation that effectively put Catholic adoption agencies out of business (the gay adoption issue) , refused to lower 24 week limit on abortions and has embarked on promoting “sex education” and “gay lifestyle” to children as young as five while at the same time utterly dhimmified in its slavish devotion to all things islamic.
pro-catholic my arse.
if i were a devout catholic i would certainly smell a rat.
I’ve never met a Catholic, including myself, who gave a damn about the Act of Succession.
But there are fifth columns everywhere, and the Church is no exception.
Oh, and as a Catholic, whilst I second the views about the wholesale demoralization of Britain under New Labour, I would add that I find their devious, sedition republicanism, and their marginalisation of our Monarch just as offensive.
I hope and pray that when this vile, spiteful little government that ran our of a mandate years ago, bent on wrecking this country in the time it has stolen is finally dispatched into history, that we can rebuild a Christian nation that Her Majesty can be proud of.
In fact, I wish she would call a general election on our behalf.
I bet if the Pope ever feels like making a comment in support of this, it will be the one time the BBC reports on him favorably.
This is more likely to be a forerunner to dis-establishing the Church from the State, a long held goal of the left.
CMIIW but a Catholic cannot be the Superior of the Church of England as any Catholic would be subordinate to the Pope. An impasse for most Protestants I’d’ve thought. No religion or sect can countenance one who is not of their faith to be the head of it – the Pope is never a Protestant is he? So the short cut compromise would be to remove the Church from the State thereby freeing the State from any charge of discrimination.
As to primogeniture I can’t say it exercises me much but it is surely up to the bequestor (?) to bequeath an estate to whomever they so desire and if the Monarchy want to only bequeath the State to a male heir then it is their prerogative, surely? Is Brown now saying that the State decides who gets what in a will? Another slippery slope leading to a Police State?
I think it is brave of GB to speak up for wealthy aristocratic plutocrats who cannot get richer by taking over the Crown. Their lives must really be made hell because of it.
I am an outsider. I don’t see the problem with inviting the editor of a Catholic weekly to comment on an issue directly involving British Catholics.
It is certainly preferable than inviting a Muslim, an atheist or a Jew.
Will someone explain the bias here.
BTW I just read the Act of Settlement. It seems to me that if Prince William were to marry a Miss Fatima Abdul-Rahman or a Miss Feigele Levi the act would have nothing to say about it.
“MP attacks ‘PC’ Church leadership”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 7968304.stm
George R | 28.03.09 – 4:49 pm | #
———————————-
From that link we find more examples of the sloppy BBC:
1) a mangled sentence that makes no sense:
“A private member’s bill calling for the 300-year old Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from succeeding to the throne, was withdrawn after ministers failed to support it.”
2) A caption written by an illiterate who attributes to the MP something that he didn’t say (and wouldn’t say):
“The Church is too timid in its pronunciations, the MP said.”
————————————
Why do we pay for these overpaid incompetents to spread their ignorance all over the internet?
One of the clauses in the BBC Charter is to promote education and learning, I believe. The idea of the ignorant, uneducated and overpaid B’oids promoting education and learning… heh!
It’s a good job I usually only look at a few links to the BBC website posted here. If I read the site itself every day, I’d burst a vessel.
‘I enjoyed the programme and the company of your nice guests.’ – BBC
‘Thank you very much for the invitation. I wish you all the success you deserve.’ – BBC
‘Thank you very much for the invitation. I really enjoyed the annual dinner. It was refreshing. It was, as before, perfectly organised…’ • BBC
‘Thank you so much for your generous invitation…The event was wonderful and the presentation was flawless…Best wishes for continued success…’ • BBC.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3484271/the-real-lobby-and-its-acolytes.thtml
deegee:
I am an outsider. I don’t see the problem with inviting the editor of a Catholic weekly to comment on an issue directly involving British Catholics.
It is certainly preferable than inviting a Muslim, an atheist or a Jew.
Will someone explain the bias here.
BTW I just read the Act of Settlement. It seems to me that if Prince William were to marry a Miss Fatima Abdul-Rahman or a Miss Feigele Levi the act would have nothing to say about it.
deegee | 28.03.09 – 7:47 pm | #
————————————-
Maybe it’s because she has broken the Islamic monopoly on Thought for the Day. (joke)
Seriously, though… the plot thickens:
This Evan Harris MP has South African Jewish parents but is a militant secularist and has form: he got the law on blasphemy removed.
I don’t think this is anything to do with Catholics as such, but more a scheme to get rid of the Church’s (Cof E)involvement in public life and government.
Just wanted to say to Tom and any other Roman Catholic B-BBC readers that I dd not mean to offend them but the reason I picked up on this was that for the second day in a row the BBC is spinning a 300 year old story! I have NO issues with any person of any faith (Yes, even Islam, thoiugh one could argue it is more of a pathology) commenting on an isutre that concerns them!! But there was news management going on here and I look forward to the BBC providing TFTD to someone who – for eample, opposes condom policy in Africa – that would be interesting to hear, except we won’t.
OT – but look at the way the EU collegues treat any oppostion to their grand anti-democratic plan.
Libertarian | 28.03.09 – 8:09 pm |
note that those bbc comments come from a FUNDRAISING dinner…
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/PressReleases/tabid/77/newsid391/5900/Media-feedback-from-AMW-fundraising-dinner/Default.aspx
it would be interesting to find out how “arab media watch” gets its funding.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has complained to the Director General of the BBC about the decline of religious programming at the Corporation.
The corporation recently sacked its head of religious programmes, Michael Wakelin, a Methodist preacher.
The emergence of a Muslim as the front-runner to succeed Mr Wakelin, along with the recent appointment of a Sikh to produce Songs of Praise, has raised fears within the Church that the Christian voice is being sidelined.
Mr Thompson caused controversy last year when he suggested that Islam should be treated more sensitively by the media than Christianity because Muslims are a minority religion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5067420/Archbishop-confronts-BBC-Director-General-over-its-treatment-of-religion.html
.
Millie Tant | 28.03.09 – 8:09 pm |
I don’t think this is anything to do with Catholics as such, but more a scheme to get rid of the Church’s (Cof E)involvement in public life and government.
So they’re as fed up with the Archbeard’s meddling as people here are?
note that those bbc comments come from a FUNDRAISING dinner…
archduke | 28.03.09 – 9:22 pm
Note all the comments were anonymous. At BBC or AMW request, I wonder?
So they’re as fed up with the Archbeard’s meddling as people here are?
David Preiser (USA) | 28.03.09 – 11:31 pm | #
————————————–
I wouldn’t think they are bothered by wishy-bishy weirdy-beardy particularly – well, HE doesn’t offer any opposition, does he? It’s probably more the loud ones like Sentamu and Nasir-Ali who, ironically enough, are heard shouting in the media about Muslims not integrating or about lack of respect for Christianity and English cultural heritage etc, while HE is bletheirng on about Sharia law, of all things. You couldn’t make it up!
But beyond that, it is probably little to do with the bishy personalities but with the fact that the Bishops of the CE sit in the House of Lords and it is the Established Church…there again, once you get into the issue about Catholic succession, you are calling into question the nature of the Monarchy as well, since they have to be CE and head of the CE Church. So what do you do? Obviously, disestablish the CE.
And maybe they want to give the Monarchy the heave as well, while they are at it. After all, they could stand for President, themselves, if only the Royals would get out of the way. (I am not at all cynical – nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
I suspect they simply want to secularise everything to do with government and consitutuion because they see religion as irrelevant and a bit of an interloper in the business of making laws.
That is the aim of the National Secular Society – for which that MP bringing the Bill about the Succession is something of a poster boy. The Catholic Church has been making a nuisance of itself in recent times too, in their eyes, over homosexual adoption and various right-to-life issues, whether it be abortion or euthanasia or other medical and research matters. Again, that is seen as meddling.
My understanding is that the ideology is –
Catholicism against Protestanism
Islam against Christianity
Secularism against religion
New and untested against traditional and unporblmeatic
The common theme is anti Britain and anti-society.
So catholicism is useful today as it cn be used to attack the established constituional system and the wishes of the majority of the population but in another context will be seen as the enemy. Thus a catholic voice is given prominence here where it si useful but will be marginalized elsewhere.
I didnt hear the thought for the day but I think it is legitimate to view it as very likely bias as it seems to fit with the known agenda – perhaps on another day they ahve had or will have someone who argues in favour of the current settlement and doesnt take the “discrimination” point of view. In this case it may not be such a strong case of bias – but it is certianly the case that there was a choice of what viewpoint they wanted – they could equally well ahve had someone who stronly favoured the current situation – this would have had the merit of putting the opposing view to that proposed by hte governemnt and for rather than agaisnt the britsih instituions of the CofE and the monarchy.
Quite possibly others have already linked to this but Damian Thompson argues that Brown is attempting to leave a constitutional mark and to mollify catholics who have been upset in other ways.
My understanding (based on little) is that Labour in some parts of the country rely on catholic votes.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/03/27/browns_plan_to_amend_the_act_of_settlement_is_an_attempt_to_neuter_catholics
Charled Moore mentions an offensive cartoon in Times about Pope Benedict (offensive to everyone not just catholics) and points out the difference between this and cartoons about Mohammed.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/3473456/part_3/the-spectators-notes.thtml
2nd link to beginnig of article
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/3473456/the-spectators-notes.thtml
Francis | 29.03.09 – 1:23 am |
David Vance had a post a few days ago about the BBC’s own bias against the Pope on the same issue.
I hadn’t gotten around to reading this week’s Spectator until I saw your comment. Now that I have, I noticed something that should encourage a few people here:
Many correspondents say that they want to do what I shall do and refuse to renew their television licence (while keeping their televisions) unless Jonathan Ross is sacked. But they naturally worry about exactly what will happen to them. I am encouraged by the example of Niall Warry, of Cheltenham. Mr Warry tells me that he refused to renew his licence because of the BBC’s inveterate bias in favour of the European Union. He argued that the BBC was in breach of its Charter, and therefore he had no obligation to pay the licence fee. He informed TV Licensing of what he was up to, and was eventually charged with failure to pay the fee. In court, he told the magistrates that he was ready to pay if the BBC would keep its side of the bargain. He was given a conditional discharge, and ordered to pay £50 costs. When subsequently threatened again about not having a licence, he pointed out that the matter had already been dealt with by the court. Eventually, the threats ceased.
I am pleasantly surprised by this as the BBC is generally anti-Catholic.
This is a dangerous assumption, and not generally true.
The BBC is BIAS, in that it collectively has an agenda, which by its own charter it is not permitted to have.
This results in the BBC being highly selective in what it promotes and what it does not even mention under any circumstances.
For example
Many Labour and conservative MP’s are Roman Catholics. Many of those which are not openly Roman Catholic are members of masonic orders which are strongly allied to The Papal authorities controlled by the Jesuits. Like for example Tony Blair who is a Knight of Malta and Scottish rite masons such as Gordon Brown.
I would like you and others to consider the following reality to at least have a large proportion of now self apparent truth.
There is no such thing as a true protestant faith. The Pope in Rome has in reality been controlling all Christian if not all religions for a very long time, one way or another.
I contend that the Pope in Rome through his Jesuit army of committed followers effectively controls The CofE and much of The BBC, in fact much of the entire worlds governments, politicians, secret services and religions.
Which bits the Black Pope does not control, is owned and controlled by other Zionist powers, who work hand in glove with him.
Now this may sound like a perfectly crazy conspiracy theory, but that in itself does not make it incorrect.
Please be reminded.
TRUTH is often much stranger then fiction.
The top of the worlds establishments have indeed been working closely together, against the interests of the common people for thousands of years. What makes us believe that this historically well documented situation ever changed?
Answer; the education system that these people completely control, and of course the BBC/MSM that they also completely control.
I still live in hope that one day at least one person reading this site will actually engage in the issues I carefully present. Instead of simply insulting the messenger. I try very hard not to insult the intelligence of others.
Please understand I speak from a position of real first hand knowledge, not from what I have picked up from the profane.
| won’t insult you but I will tell you that I think you are mistaken. And “Black Pope” had me wondering. Who he?
The “Black Pope” is the nickname applied to the Father General of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). It derives partly from the fact he wears a plain black cassock, in contrast the Pope’s white, and partly from the perception that he is one of the most powerful men in Catholicism.
On an unrelated note, the Tablet is about as Catholic as the BBC is impartial.