Political implications of Johnson's Catholicisim

Why is Marydoll being bullied?
Is it because she said she is Catholic and has defended her faith on here?

Good question Callistemon but I doubt Kali2 will come back to answer. She's failed to answer any other question raised and only returns to aim another pop at Marydoll. I wonder why?

OP why are you being horrid to Marydoll.
she has done nothing to deserve it. far from it.

Kali2

Oh if only you did put that into practise

Why is Marydoll being bullied?
Is it because she said she is Catholic and has defended her faith on here?
That is all she has done, I cannot see that she has made any personal comments at all.

I am shocked if she is being attacked for her faith.
It adds to my view that there is a distinct anti-Catholic bias to this thread.

Talullah
Registry is becoming common parlance. It is stressful to me. It shouldn't be. We were always told to correct people. But we are fighting a losing battle. Everyone says it now. Even the BBC.

I didn't make it up, they are the official names on the websites.
As I say, perhaps we're a bit behind in Wales!

I don't think I've ever heard it said differently in fact.

It's not at all unusual I'm afraid Peasblossom.

I meant the comment you just made.

I was shocked by its venom.

Yes, lots of personal comments on several threads for quite a while, sadly, mainly from 2 posters. Being told I have no right to comment. I have not made any at all so far and will leave it at that.

Wow, that’s personal.

Oh if only you did put that into practise

Thank you, Callistemon. Perhaps, I should be reporting unfair allegations against me and a certain, insidious and subtle anti Catholic tone.
However, I don't want this to descend into an unpleasant spat. It has been an interesting discussion and I have learned a lot from some very knowledgeable posters, about other religions. I have a very open and tolerant mind and I hope it stays that way.
As I have said previously, Live and let live!.

Marydoll typo, apologies

The Commons still has primacy so democracy is served in that way.

And quite frequently the Lords does defeat a Bill passed in the Commons.
I remember one which was very defeated many years ago and showed that the Lords were far more compassionate than members of the Commons.

I'm puzzled about the allegations about Marydoll, Kali as they seem to be without foundation.

Mardoll seems to have stated her position on this thread fairly and without any unpleasantness.

There does appear to be an underlying element of anti-Catholicism throughout, however, which does need challenging.

Kali2

Yes, I have. No fears from me, this is just a discussion, thanks.

Marydoll, because I have chosen not to complain about your allegations and unpleasant comments.

I haven't made any unpleasant, nor personal comments about you, I have been very restrained, difficult as it was, after reading some of the posts.

Some of your comments (gleaned from the Internet) about Catholicism, were innacurate and I posted my own experience of living the Catholic faith and questioned where you got your information.
Correct me if I'm wrong, we are all allowed to post on here and respond to posts, if we don't agree or want to add to the discussion, aren't we ????

I have no issues with bishops in the House of Lords - having watched coverage on BBC Parliament many times, they bring a different perspective. Rather like Lords who have some kind of specialist knowledge. I do however think the 26 should be split proportionally between the various faiths practised in this country. To be honest the whole House of Lords is not wildly democratic - however it seems to work, as the old adage goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it". The Commons still has primacy so democracy is served in that way.

Kali2
The only reason you have not reported any posts is because you have learnt that to do that shuts the whole thread down.
But that’s not what you want, is it?

I can assure you the OP was triggered by the very question being discussed in large sections of the Press, and social media.

It seems that it is not something which concerns or interests some of you. No problem at all, just ignore - so so simple.

Yes, I have. No fears from me, this is just a discussion, thanks.

Marydoll, because I have chosen not to complain about your allegations and unpleasant comments.

Kali2 have you read all the posts on this thread?

Many of your points may have been answered many times over, and your fears could be laid to rest as they are without foundation.

But I still strongly suspect that there is an anti Catholic bigotry at the root that's trying to be concealed behind other, more spurious complaints.
Chewy I sincerely hope not, but as my mother used to say: " Ah hae ma doots. "
There is definitely an unpleasant tone, running through this thread.

However, I too am flummoxed at what is actually the purpose of the original post.

Any challenge by posters is usually countered with accusations of bullying towards the OP. If there is bullying taking place, why is the thread still standing?

Goalposts also seem remarkably mobile.

I've asked the OP, several times, to just clarify exactly what it is that's vexing her: Boris Johnson getting married? Boris Johnson getting married in a Catholic church? The Catholic church actually agreeing to his marriage? Boris Johnson being a non practising Catholic but then opting to get married within that faith? The Catholic faith being a threat to British politics because of its 16th history? The Catholic faith in general? Boris Johnson in general?
Kali2 has vacilated between all of these and like MawB and welbeck, I'm non the wiser. But I still strongly suspect that there is an anti Catholic bigotry at the root that's trying to be concealed behind other, more spurious complaints.

Straws are being clutched-never mind pearls!
Goalposts also seem remarkably mobile.

^Let's imagine that someone is elected PM as a CofE- and he then later converts to Islam? Now that would not bother me personally at all- but I think it would bother a great many. And not just on GN.

Well, I for one am very confused.

Firstly, we elect a government, not a PM. The leader of the winning party normally then becomes PM.
If the PM is C of E then converts to Islam you say this would not bother you personally - but you cannot speak for others and what they may or may not think.

What puzzles me is that you do, however, seem very concerned that a confirmed Anglican who is PM may have, by some kind of osmosis, become a Roman Catholic by marrying a Catholic woman in a Catholic place of worship.

I am not quite following the logic, sorry.

so you are anti religion and wish for all ties between church and state in the uk to be severed.
as they are in america; but you're not happy with their arrangements either, re birthplace of presidential candidate.
is that it.
so why give a completely different title to this thread, re BoJo.
do you have a very large wooden spoon ?

From Humanist Society again:

''Bishops in the House of Lords

The UK Parliament automatically awards 26 seats in the House of Lords to bishops of the Church of England. These bishops are able to (and do) vote on legislation, make interventions, and lead prayers at the start of each day’s business.

This is an extremely unusual and anti-democratic set-up, which has a negative influence on the quality and character of British politics. The only two sovereign states in the world to award clerics of the established religion votes in their legislatures are the UK and the Islamic Republic of Iran (a totalitarian theocracy).''

From the Humanist association

2Preface The UK is the only democratic country to give seats in its legislature to religious representatives as of right. This is not just a harmless legacy of a medieval constitution but a present example of discrimination, religious privilege and un-democratic politics. The presence of Church of England in the House of Lords entrenches a privileged position for one particular branch of one particular religion that cannot be justified in today’s society, which is not only multi-faith but increasingly non-religious. It is at odds with the aspiration of a more legitimate and representative second chamber and with recognition of a plural society. The BHA has long argued for the removal of the right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, especially since the prospects for reform became (slightly) greater in 2002, and the public are strongly on our side in wanting to remove this religious privilege. Most recently the government has proposed to retain a number of seats for Church of England bishops in a partially appointed chamber. It also proposed to give the Church of England new powers to choose precisely which bishops represent the Church. New public agitation for reform – most notable the activities of Power 2010 have motivated us to publish a comprehensive account of our reasoning now as a contribution to this essential debate.