'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Prince Charles urges environmentalists
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html#ixzz46SiDxb3Z
This has been inexplicably removed, but you can still find it at http://discernthetime.com/follow-the-islamic-way-to-save-the-world-prince-charles-urges-envir/
This has been inexplicably removed, but you can still find it at http://discernthetime.com/follow-the-islamic-way-to-save-the-world-prince-charles-urges-envir/
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Under Article 9 which includes everyone and this must include reigning monarchs, Charles has the right to freedom of religion.
They would force him to abdicate, of course, but he will have made his point.
Or, he could persuade the House to amend the Act of Settlement.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/III
He could put the following questions to the House:
Q. Why can't Charles III be Muslim?
A. Because the constitution says no non-Anglican may be included in the succession.
Q. Why can't the constitution be changed then?
A. Because the House doesn't want to change it.
Q. Why doesn't the House want to change the constitution?
A.. Because the House doesn't want to rock the boat.
Q. Why doesn't the House want to rock the boat?
A. Because the House doesn't want to frighten the horses.
Q. Who might these frightened horses be?
A. They would be Islamophobic frightened horses.
Q. Which is worse? 1) frightened Islamophobic horses 2) the withholding of religious freedom to a reigning British king
A. Frightened Islamophobic horses everywhere would run wild endangering lives and property while no one cares about withholding a king's religious freedom.
Q. Fine, if you won't amend the Act of Settlement then I will have to abdicate in favour of William the Air Ambulance Pilot with the plebeian accent and in need desperate need of elocution lessons as you wish, but I would like you to give reasons. So you are saying that the preferences of Islamophobic commoners ignoramuses trumps a king's right to religious freedom?
A. Well, Anglicanism has been the national religion of England since Henry VIII.
Q. What was the national religion of England during the reign of Bloody Mary, his eldest daughter?
A. We cannot deny it was Catholicism.
Q. What was the religion of England during the reign of Elizabeth I, his younger daughter?
A. We cannot deny that it reverted to Anglicanism.
Q. The institution of the monarchy survived despite these changes of monarchs and the national religion, has it not?
A. We cannot deny that the monarchy has indeed survived despite these religious upheavals.
Q. Don't you think it can survive another one then?
A. Perhaps it can but we don't want to take the risk.
Q. For the monarchy to be relevant, it has to be deal with the concerns of ordinary Britons. Islam is much on their minds and it is time for a national debate. The view of these Islamophobic and hypocritical ignoramuses is that Christianity is a better religion than Islam, is it not?
A. We cannot deny this, but why do you call them hypocritical?
Q. I call these Islamophobic ignoramuses hypocritical because they are not even Christian. They prefer Christianity to Islam precisely because the Church of England fails to condemn the sexual liberation they all enjoy. Is this not so?
A. We cannot deny this, but there are those who love church traditions, its music and architecture and suchlike.
Q. They can still have those things even if I'm Muslim. My son the Air Ambulance Pilot can be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury when his time comes, if the Church of England is still in existence by then, or he can convert to Judaism or Buddhism as he pleases. Any more objections?
A. How are we going to sell this to the people who will be ranting and raving in their predictably Islamophobic way?
Q. You could point out to them that if Henry VIII had been Muslim he could have just taken another wife when Catherine of Aragon failed to give him a son. Or divorced her and married Anne Boleyn. It just wouldn't have been that big a deal. Think of all the bloodshed that would have been avoided if Henry VIII had been Muslim. The European Wars of Religion were about Christians killing each other. The Inquisition would have been avoided too. As for Edward VIII, he could have married the divorced woman he loved and kept the crown without the hypocritical establishment having fits of the vapours. There is a whole chapter in the Koran just about divorce, you know.
A. Point taken, Sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment