Posted on 03/11/2018 10:22:26 PM PDT by WilliamIII
o the royal household, it is known as the QXB – the Queen’s Christmas broadcast. To millions of people, it is still an essential feature of Christmas Day. To the Queen, her annual broadcast is the time when she speaks to the nation without the government scripting it. But in recent years, it has also become something else: a declaration of her Christian faith. As Britain has become more secular, the Queen’s messages have followed the opposite trajectory.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Given that she can never speak of these matters in public, save in the one Christmas message described in the article, I wonder how you (or anyone else) can know that?
but refuses to stand up for Christian morals in any serious way.
Again, how do you know, given that the only means constitutionally available to her to do so is in private advice to her ministers?
Presiding over a house of pedophiles. God save her.
To: naturalman1975
I believe I have read on other threads that you happen to know Prince Charles well yourself, and that most of us, while generally having a dim personal view of him, might otherwise be favorably surprised were we to know him ourselves, as you do.
Would you care to comment on HA's posting made here?
FReegards!
Are you seriously suggesting that they did so because the Turks were Muslim rather than that it was in their perceived national interests to do so? That would be absurd.
No, I’m not. But I’m noting that the British perceived that what was in their national interest was securing Islamic hegemony over East Asia. The British Empire has always countered the insecurity of being such a massive empire ruled by such tiny islands by sowing division, disaster and discord everywhere, so their hegemony couldn’t be countered. Go ahead and claim it’s smart politics, but it sure as HELL isn’t Christianity.
She didn't. It still stands. In any case, it's not in the Queen's power to alter - only Parliament could do that.
The one who will allow Muslim nobility and PMs, but not Catholics?
Goodness knows where you got that from. There are many Catholics in both Houses of Parliament.
The one who has responsibility for appointing a Druid has head of the Church of England?
She didn't. Rowan Williams's so-called 'druid' status was no more than a quaintly-titled literary award given by a Welsh cultural organisation in recognition of his work as a poet in the Welsh language. It has nothing whatever to do with paganism.
Three baseless myths about the Queen in three sentences. That's some achievement.
... I would also note that the politics weren’t smart in the long run, as the deliberate hobbling of the Russian Empire led to the Soviet Union. Then the deliberate hobbling of the German Empire led to the Nazi Regime. And the deliberate hobbling of the Chinese Empire led to the People’s Republic. If not for the awareness of the limitless potential of political stupidity, one could easily become convinced that the British royalty are the greatest force of evil in the history of the world.
True, but they should have been a lot more if the British had any real aim to spread Christianity. But they didn’t, they were merchants
I wouldn’t wish for one moment to question the work of American missionaries, but during the great period of Imperial expansion in the 19th century their numbers in Africa were still small compared with the legions sent out by the Church Missionary Society, the Baptist Missionary Society, the Methodist Missionary Society and others. It’s no accident that today there are more active Anglicans in Nigeria than in the UK itself.
I respectfully disagree. In the Caribbean these were imported slaves for kinda forced. in Africa yes, but the majority of the conversions happened post independence.
>> She didn’t. It still stands. In any case, it’s not in the Queen’s power to alter - only Parliament could do that. <<
No, at her direction, Parliament changed the title to “Defender of Faith.”
>> Goodness knows where you got that from. There are many Catholics in both Houses of Parliament. <<
I didn’t write MP, I wrote PM. No one in proximate line of succession to the throne nor Prime Minister may be Catholic. I did just learn, however, that as a result of the Succession to the Crown Act of 2015, an heir to the throne may marry a Catholic.
>> Rowan Williams’s so-called ‘druid’ status was no more than a quaintly-titled literary award given by a Welsh cultural organisation in recognition of his work as a poet in the Welsh language. It has nothing whatever to do with paganism. <<
Yes, he participated in pagan worship for a mere, minor honor from a “Welsh cultural organization.” The proceeded to abolish any reference to Christ from the CoE’s New Year’s service, press for abolishing right of conscience for Christian opponents of abortion, and so on and so on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1955634/Queen-dons-Muslim-headscarf-to-visit-Turkish-mosque.html
2008 Queen Elizabeth dons Muslim headscarf to visit Turkish mosque
Faith bump
Africa at the close of WWI was more than 80% pagan, and the largest number of those who weren’t were Muslim, and the majority of the small Christian minority were Catholic.
The chief effect of the UK Christianization was the establishment of the Church of England as the vehicle through which other missionaries — many bearing no affiliation to the Church of England — did their work.
“Given that she can never speak of these matters in public, save in the one Christmas message described in the article, I wonder how you (or anyone else) can know that?”
You’re making the mistake of thinking “she can never speak of these matters in public”. The Guardian might put it that way but that’s because they do whatever they can as a communist newspaper to paint the monarchy as an obsolete tool of the capitalist establishment. No one can stop the queen from talking about whatever she wants to talk about. Who is going to stop her?
The only real rule about religion which exists in regard to the English royal family members is that they cannot become Catholic and still become the monarch. Some legal scholars say once a monarch they can be Muslim, they can be Hindu (and still rule the Anglican Church!), but they can’t become Catholic.
The U.K. has gay marriage (a great moral evil), abortion on demand (a great evil), gay adoption (a great evil), rampant contraception (a great moral evil - as Protestants universally believed until the 1930s) and a number of others. Queen Elizabeth has never condemned or fought against any of these evils. She has, instead, tacitly endorsed them all. That means she doesn’t have much of deep faith. I’m not saying she has no faith at all, but a faith that does exactly nothing against moral evils that destroy millions of souls is worthless.
“Again, how do you know, given that the only means constitutionally available to her to do so is in private advice to her ministers?”
Again, she has never once opposed a great moral evil in the U.K. Never. She is not prohibited from doing so. Even if she were prohibited from doing so, why would that matter? What can they do to her? Can they send her to Hell? Can they destroy her soul? What a worthless faith she has if it is so easily cowed.
Queen Elizabeth II chose her crown over the gospel - just like her ancestors time and time again.
The depths of the deplorable lack of Christianity from the Royal family can’t be fathomed, but I’ll decline to criticize her on this. It’s what many Turks consider “decent” attire, and even the Catholic Church asks visitors to the Vatican to dress “decently.” (In the case of the Catholics, it means covering thighs and midriffs, not hair.)
Keep in mind, she practices what the GUARDIAN considers Christianity: hatred to real Christians; fawning over Muslims; promoting homosexuality and abortion, etc.
There would be no void if Britain had not become so secular. They have positively reveled in it, turning a blind eye while their young girls are being tortured by rape jihadists and their abandoned churches turned into mosques. That couldn't happen if they had remained in the pews.
One of the most powerful evangelical movements of the 18th century was Wesley's Methodism, which he intended as an enhancement or reform of Anglicanism. Instead, like Luther, he was rejected and expelled. It was to our benefit, since Methodist Episcopalianism was at one time the largest U.S. denomination after Episcopalian Anglicanism.
Sadly, Wesley's welcoming church, which helped break the ironclad British class system with regard to admitting individuals to church participation, has in the past 50 years devolved into just another Democrat outpost of heresy and "Nice"-ism. But it was a force for good for 300 years, from before the American Revolution until the swingin' 60s.
That is not true. She is still titled that way in UK, but many of the Commonwealth countries have become republics and have altered the title, but retained a form of declaration that humankind are under God.
Fidei defensor (Defender of the Faith) —see the section titled "Modern usage."
It is Prince Charles who has sought to make a "nuanced" change; but who has been criticized for it. I don't know; but I suspect this matter is not entirely up to him, since the official actions of the UK monarch are circumscribed by Parliament. Anyone else know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.