A report by Stella L. Jatras:
A London Sunday Telegraph report of March 4 questioned Prince Charles' fitness to be king. The report stated that the "Prince stands accused of being 'too political' and of 'meddling' in the affairs of state in a documentary from Channel 4."Besides Prince Charles' dispute with television bosses, there are far more serious reasons to question "Charlie's fitness to be king."
If Bonnie Prince Charlie were ever to become king of England, it would be his duty, as it has been for centuries for former kings and queens, that he remain Keeper of the [Anglican] Faith. However, he has indicated that should he become king, he would then become "Keeper of the Faiths." Charles stated several years ago that there should be more Islamic studies in British schools. Words similar to those were spoken by former Secretary of State Colin Powell when he said that the United States should bring in more clergy, more teachers, and more journalists from Islamic countries.
Little notice was given when the Queen accommodated a Muslim female gift shop employee by designating an Islamic prayer room at Windsor Castle. Some years ago, there was a demonstration in front of British Parliament with signs that read, "Islam, our religion today; your religion tomorrow." The Guardian in 2001 reported that the demonstrators boasted, "We will replace the Bible with the Koran in Britain." This extraordinary possibility is not far fetched when you consider the following:
A 1997 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Prince Charles of Arabia," by Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman, looked at evidence that Britain's Prince Charles might be a secret convert to Islam. They sifted through his public statements (defending Islamic law, praising the status of Muslim women, seeing in Islam a solution for Britain's ailments) and actions (setting up a panel of twelve "wise men" to advise him on Islamic religion and culture), and concluded that "should Charles persist in his admiration of Islam and defamation of his own culture," his accession to the throne will indeed usher in a "different kind of monarchy.
Prince Charles is not the only possible convert to Islam among Britain's upper classes. As reported in The Sunday Times of 22 Feb. 2004, some of the country's top landowners and celebrities, as well as the offspring of senior Establishment figures, have embraced Islam after becoming disillusioned with Western values. Radiance Viewsweekly also reported that "Jonathan Birt, the son of Lord Birt, and Emma Clark, the granddaughter of former liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, are only two of 14,000 mostly-elite white Britons who have reverted to Islam."
Bruce Bawer's book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West From Within claims that well before 2050, most of Europe is likely to become an outpost of Islam, governed by Sharia. In a childish display of appeasement, one bank in Britain even banned piggy banks so as not to offend Muslims.
Yet despite the London bombing by Muslim terrorists on 7 July 2005, which hit London's public transport system during rush hours and killed 52 commuters, there are today no efforts to confront the impact of a growing and restive Muslim population in Britain. Today, there are more practicing Muslims in Britain today than there are practicing Anglicans.
To the Brits I say, "if we do not defeat these Muslim extremists, the jihadist enemy that is trying to destroy us, you, too, will be involuntarily praying five times a day to Mecca, and your women will be veiled in Londonistan."
Suggested Reading:Charles' fitness questioned to be king -- see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070303-105035-4165r.htm
Britain's Queen Elizabeth gives orders to allow room at Windsor Castle to be used by Muslim employee as a prayer zone during the holy month of Ramadan -- see: http://khloud.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/muslim-prayer-zone-in-windsor-castle/
Prince Charles Promotes Islam to President Bush -- see: http://www.truthformuslims.com/articles/marion_2006_02_prince_charles_promotes_islam.htm
Prince Charles in Islamic dress -- see: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119
How very sad that the blood shed for England will come to this. Richard the Lionheart must be spinning in his grave.
http://www.templarhistory.com/richard.html
Charles is an inbred idiot who will bring Britain to ruin should he be allowed to become king.
Long live Prince William !
Narrator: [while brutally beating Angel Face] I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I'd never see. I wanted to breathe smoke.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes
I remember he mentioned islam years ago when Diana was still his wife. I thought: how strange!
Bit like GWB calling islam the RoP.
I think the Brits need another Oliver Cromwell!
Charles' great uncle, (the Duke of Windsor and his wife, Wallis Simpson), was a Nazi sympathizer.
The UK almost became a republic after WW1, hence the royal family changed their family name to "Windsor" from " Saxe - Coburg " if my memory serves me (happy to be corrected).
Funny thing is that Charles' late grandmother: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon definitely had Jewish blood in her family tree, and she was one of the first to read "mein kampf". She warned her husband and Churchill of it. It is also one of the reasons she loathed Mrs Wallis Simpson so much.
Still the good side is camilla would wear a niqab and that is fine with me,lol!
The Ayatollah on Sex with Infants:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives"
Aye! Come back to Earth Charles! We need you!
Sadly, charlie's condition is not unlike most other Brits. His along with most of Britain's apostasy from Christianity will be England's doom.
Secularists and athiests love to point out the flaws of old Christian Europe, but warts and all, it was Christian Europe that defended Europe from the savagry of islam.
Along with its faith, Europe has lost its sword and shield.
In the OT, God on several occassion had to deliver the Israelites into the hands of their enemies as punishment for being disobedient to His will.
What happened before will happen again and it is happening now.
"Secretary of State Colin Powell ... said that the United States should bring in more clergy, more teachers, and more journalists from Islamic countries."
There is something called the first Commandment Mr. Powell! Something to do with no God but God. Alas! The folly! Do they not know the history of the ME! If not, why? WHY?
They had the courage to eliminate one Charles (Charles I) ... whose to say it can't happen again.
Long live the European Declaration of Independence!
This questioning of Charles may be the first step in the right direction a a very long time
"Still the good side is camilla would wear a niqab and that is fine with me,lol!"
Typical dumb anti-Camilla joke. There are a lot of faces (mostly male), that aren't too pleasant to look at - including Charles's own.
But Camilla is surely too strong and stroppy to put up with the islamic b*******t, once apprised of the its true colours? And with her formidable influence on Charles, she may rescue him from any islamic delusions.
Inquiring minds want to know if Camilla did wear a niqab, how would she handle the feed bag?
The spiritual soul of England is sick. Weakened by relativism and secularism, most native Brits have little commitment to Christianity, the faith that helped drive Britian to become a protector of the faith in Christendom.
Today, church attendance is at an all time low throughout much of Britian. Birthrates in England are among the very lowest in all of Europe.
The Anglican Church is a divided church that inspires few with its rejection of Christian tradition and acceptance of secular liberal values.
Prince Charles could led Briton even further away from true Christianity if he becomes the " Keeper of Faiths."
The time has come to ask for the intercession of Great Britian's patron saint, the mighty St. George.
http://www.britannia.com/history/stgeorge.html
Charles would be the most unpopular monarch in over a century and a half - most people hope the succession will skip a generation to his son. With a bit of luck he'll do something so cranky and idiotic in the next few years that he'll be forced to agree to it, in order to preserve the monarchy as an institution.
Charles appears to be 'keeper' of the Anglican faith in the way Henry VIII was a 'defender' of Catholic faith.
At least the hard-headed Henry earned the title early in his monarchy and he was clear about his break with the Pope when the time came. Charles betrays the title before assuming the throne and is as fluffy and misty as London fog.
What a king he shall make.
LET US NOT FORGET LABOURS PACT WITH EVIL
Labour and British Muslims:
Can we dream the same dream?
by Mike O`Brien MP
Are some Muslims about to vote against the best friend they have ever had in government? Can people really claim that the Labour Government is a friend of Muslims after Iraq? The answer may surprise you.
Understandably, many Muslims are very angry about the war. Traditionally they have supported Labour but some are now switching to the Liberal Democrats, Respect or even the Tories. But the real question is whether there is a danger that anger may be causing Muslims to vote against their own long-term interests?
Putting a cross on a ballot paper is much more than just about expressing anger; a General Election is not some kind of referendum on the Governments` record on one issue. It is about making a balanced political judgment between political parties and deciding which of them should have a majority in a Parliament. It is about the kind of country you want to live in. It is about considering what a Labour Government rather than a Conservative Government has done and will do in the future for Muslims. I suggest that a vote, which weighs in the balance the long-term implications for Muslims, is the right approach.
We all know the importance of Iraq. Indeed, some people will try to convince you that it is the only issue that matters. Most however, will look beyond Iraq to also consider other issues such as the fate of the Palestinians. Despite the many setbacks over the last few years, the creation of a Palestinian state is a cause that the Prime Minister has repeatedly raised with great conviction and never abandoned. He has even declared it to be his personal priority. It is the key to peace in the Middle East. He has long advocated a two state solution, Palestine and Israel, side by side, both at peace. The reality is that the only way a Palestinian state will be created is if Israel is prepared to concede land it currently occupies on the West Bank and Gaza. Whether we in Britain like it or not, the reality of the modern world is that only the Americans can influence Israel. And it seems only Tony Blair has any influence with the Americans. Can anyone seriously imagine that Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy would be able to significantly influence George W. Bush? If they do, then they need to join the real world. The Prime Minister who has the most political clout to help the Palestinians is Tony Blair.
No one claims that the creation of a Palestinian state is going to be an easy ride for Tony Blair or for the Labour government but we are willing to stay the distance, no matter how difficult it gets. The Labour government and the Prime Minister have a record of arguing strongly that the creation of a Palestinian state is essential to peace and justice, and that any settlement must be based upon land being given for peace in line with UN Resolution 242. When the Americans and Israelis refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, Tony Blair promptly sent myself as the Foreign Office Minister, to visit Yasser Arafat in the Muquata in Ramallah to convey the message that we had not abandoned him. Tony Blair’s message was clear: we will work with the elected leader of the Palestinians, even if the Americans will not. On the issue of the assassination of the leaders of Hamas, Jack Straw as the Foreign Secretary was the first Western politician to condemn Israel’s actions.
Soon after the recent US elections, Tony Blair travelled to Washington to make it very clear that he wanted to see the road map to a Palestinian state opened up. If we are to have a Palestinian state in the next five years, then a key player in creating it will be the British Prime Minister, who will need to have world influence. In practice, only Tony Blair has the required credentials and track record. The reality remains that with George W. Bush in the White House, neither Charles Kennedy nor Michael Howard has the clout to deliver.
Are you still unconvinced that the Muslims need or should want a Labour Prime Minister in Downing Street? Well, let‚s compare Tony Blair with previous Prime Ministers. He is the first Prime Minister to have ever read the Qur‚an, to quote from it and to talk about it. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher or John Major doing the same? Whilst in opposition, Tony Blair had developed a genuine dialogue and relationship with a number of Muslims and Islamic organisations, based not just on getting votes but also on his interest in assisting Muslims achieve their rightful place in British life.
After 1997 Muslim groups were welcomed into the Home Office, the Foreign Office and 10 Downing Street. For the first time ever, four Muslim peers were appointed to the Lords and the first Muslim Labour MPs were elected. Even today, no other Party has a Muslim in the Commons. Labour is also the Party that has the largest number of Muslim councillors. We are proud of this achievement, but we have not yet finished. If you ask who are the only Party running Muslims in seriously winnable seats for the next election, the only answer is Labour.
The Muslim Council of Britain has been at the forefront of lobbying the Government on issues to help Muslims. Recently Iqbal Sacranie, the General Secretary of the Council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the Government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, in the middle of his speech to the Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour Government would ban religious discrimination. It was a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain.
But this is not the first and only time that Labour Party has delivered for Muslims. When I was a Home Office Minister in 1997, the MCB lobbied me to introduce not only a new law which would increase sentences for racial violence and harassment but also to recognise the particular problems faced by Muslims. As a result we were able to amend the law to make religion a factor in any violence and harassment. Today, new Crime Bill, announced in the Queens Speech is coming before Parliament to toughen the laws on incitement to religious hatred. This has upset some M.P.`s such as Evan Harris MP, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who has said he will oppose it because it is unnecessary!
Within weeks of coming to power, people will remember that Labour also repealed the appalling Primary Purpose Rule that discriminated against people coming to join their families in Britain, from Pakistan, Bangladesh and from other Muslim countries. This law introduced by the Conservatives caused a great deal of anguish and had broken up families. Labour promised to repeal it and promptly delivered after the election.
The new Labour Government was the first British government to give state recognition and funding to Muslim schools. Previously only Christian and Jewish schools had been allowed this opportunity. The Liberal Democrats opposed Muslim schools and Labour had to push legislation through the Commons against their strong opposition. At the same time the Foreign Office adopted a new policy to provide support for the Hajj delegation, sending doctors and administrators to Saudi Arabia to help British Hajjis. We are the only Western government to do so. Thousands of Muslims who travelled to Mecca have benefited from the change. And each year in the Commons there is now an Eid celebration, often attended by the PM, as he did this year.
I also remember when the issue arose about Muslims being included in the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Tony Blair was appalled that Muslims were being excluded and changed the protocol. He insisted that at all future civic ceremonies, including for example the commemoration of September 11 at St Paul’s Cathedral, Muslims would have a prominent role.
And across a whole range of social issues, on creating jobs, reducing poverty, on welfare reform and housing policy, Muslims have benefited from Labour government policies. Take for example the Sure Start initiative, which financed the new crèche opened at the London Muslim Centre in East London. It provides childcare facilities for the predominantly Muslim women in the whole area, in a place in which they have confidence in leaving their children.
In 2000 I took through the Commons the first Race Relations laws in a quarter of a century. Labour wanted to ensure that all public services had an obligation to promote good community relations. The impact of the law will be wide ranging.
Some might say these changes are all the result of pressure from within the Labour Party rather than the personal influence of Tony Blair himself. It is certainly true that it is the Labour Party as a whole which has had the support of Muslims; it is the Party that has supported migrant communities and the Welfare State. But Tony Blair’s keen interest in Muslim issues has been a key driver of progress through the last seven years. He was keen to ensure the interests of Muslims were considered and protected when Labour introduced the Minimum Wage, the Working Families Tax Credit and community development strategies.
It was also the PM who was personally committed to the intervention in Kosovo to help the Muslims who were being murdered by the Serbs. This was an intervention entirely for humanitarian reasons, opposed by many on the liberal Left of British politics like George Galloway. Many Muslims in Kosovo owe their lives to British intervention. Likewise, British funding of the reconstruction of Bosnia has helped Bosnian Muslims slowly re-build a future. It is Tony Blair who has personally championed the entry of Turkey- a Muslim country into the EU and he has taken a personal interest in dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. One of the key policies promoted by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown has been development aid, with 33 of the countries receiving British foreign aid being Muslim. Since 1997, the British aid assistance to Bangladesh alone has doubled.
You will have noticed I have left out the anti-terrorism legislation out of this balance sheet. There is no denying that this is a difficult issue; so let me tackle it head on. After the Madrid bombing, no one seriously doubts that we face concerns about terrorism but many have concerns about the ways in which anti-terrorism laws are being implemented.
I come from an Irish Catholic family brought up in the West Midlands. I remember the aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings, with the introduction of anti-terrorism laws and internment. The 1970s were a time when understandably fear and anger went through the Irish Catholic community in Britain. Remember the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four who were Convicted and later acquitted? Yet, despite the fact that problems arose in implementation of these laws we realise now that the anti terrorist laws were always targeted at terrorists and not at all Irish Catholics. So too today, the legislation is targeted at terrorists, not at all Muslims. Today, Ministers are doing the best they can to ensure that the laws are not wrongly used and have publicly reject the notion that these are anti-Muslim laws. Tony Blair has personally and repeatedly made this clear.
So, I ask Muslims to look at the balance sheet on the Labour government and Blair as a whole. The balance sheet shows show both positives and negatives. No one is suggesting we can possibly measure the suffering of Iraqi’s since the war, any more than we can forget the countless Iraqis that Saddam himself killed during his long tyranny.
It is true that the Prime Minister has disagreed openly with Muslims on removing Saddam and some Muslim may feel betrayed, but, across a range of other vital issues from Kosovo to policies in Britain, the Labour government are trying to deliver an agenda that has shown consideration and respect for Muslims.
And it is also important to reflect on the fact that in some seats a vote for the Liberal Democrats or Respect may be an outlet for anger over Iraq, but, in a House of over 600 MPs, it is unlikely to elect more than a handful of the minority party. The real question is who is in Government? What a protest vote could do across the country is to switch votes away from the Labour column and allow the Party that is in second place in most seats to gain a considerable numbers of M.P.`s. That Party is the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Democrats, nor Respect. The truth is that, if you vote Lib Dem or Respect, then you could end up with a Conservative MP and Conservative Government. That is the mathematics of our system of voting, whether people want it or not. Ask yourself what will Michael Howard do for British Muslims? Will his foreign policy aim to help Palestine? Will he promote legislation to protect you from religious hatred and discrimination? Will he create more jobs or support greater equality? Will he give you the choice of sending your children to a faith school? Will he stand up for the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab? Will he really fight for Turkey, a Muslim country, to join the EU? These are not academic questions. Remember, the last thing we want is to vote in anger and repent at leisure as Michael Howard, with a big smile on his face, walks through the door of Number Ten.
Tony Blair’s record on Iraq may anger many Muslims but his record is about more than one issue. But the issue is about who rules Britain and across a range of issues the Labour Government has delivered again and again for British Muslims. Labour values equality, compassion and a multi-religious Britain and so in that sense we share the dream of most British Muslims. To create that kind of society, we still have a lot to do if we are given the chance.
Mike O‘Brien is the Minister for Energy in the DTI, he is the Labour MP for North Warwickshire.
Gramfan: wrong on all counts. The house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha renamed itself the House of Windsor in 1917, before the end of the war, on account of the deserved unpopularity of all things German. And I cannot imagine who ever told you that Britain in 1919 "nearly became a republic". The immediate post-war elections were the peak of popularity and power for the coalition that had managed the war: the Liberal-Conservative alliance received a crushing majority, and Labour, whose leaders were suspect of pacifism, was nearly bundled out of Parliament altogether. Anyone even suspected of sympathy with Germany or with Lenin was smashed. There is an old Socialist myth that sympathy for the new Soviet Union threatened a national strike, but that is mostly a fable: if anyone had tried a mass movement in favour of either in 1919, they would have been annihilated by the will of the majority. And nobody, but nobody, questioned the monarchy.
This is alarmism. While I do not deny that the current government is a poisonous object who deserve the Guy Fawkes solution (except that being blown to pieces is much too quick and painless for them), the authors have no idea what Britain is really like. Whether or not Charles is dumb enough to convert to Islam does not matter; the King or Queen of Britain is one of the most powerless creatures on the face of the earth. And the American myth of the "ruling classes of England", which may have had some approximation to reality in the eighteenth century, is laughably outdated now. The real power in England is at the nexus between big businessmen, career politicians, top lawyers and judges, and career bureaucrats. These people have all sorts of origins, and being the son of a Lord no more insures being a member than being the son of a beggar prevents it. The former Prime Minister John Major was the son of a crooked, bigamous and ever-impecunious dealer in garden gnomes from Brixton - about as low an origin as you may have and live; he now lives in a million-pound mansion in Cambridgeshire. What matters is being able to climb the greasy pole, beginning from college. If you have the hardiness and resistance to boredom that it takes to become a member of the Students' Unions - which are, all things considered, probably the most corrupt and useless organizations in the United Kingdom - you are on your way up. From then on it is up to you. Lord Birt, a life peer, was important so long as he was the politicians' hatchet man at the BBC; since he left, he counts for little more than nothing, and his daughter for even less. Indeed, all these conversions, far from being a dangerous sign of corruption in what is at any rate one of the most corrupt oligarchies in the world, may well be symptoms of the deprivation and out-of-place feeling of excluded, marginalized and defeated persons who know they have no chance of getting to the core of the People Who Matter.
Will you vote for us so we can keep our jobs? Please…. Pretty Please…. We’ll give you more stuff at the expense of others. And we’ll keep bringing more of you if you keep voting for us. We have sold out so much of our society; don’t think we won’t do more!
Pathetic!
The UK almost became a republic after WW1, hence the royal family changed their family name to "Windsor" from " Saxe - Coburg " if my memory serves me (happy to be corrected).
Paolo: as I said I was happy to be corrected. However I don't think I was that far off the truth after reading what you have written.
I saw this on a documentary so I have no links.It was mentioned the public were not happy with the monarchy's German background which could have led to a republic had it gotten worse.
A "bit" like when Diana died and Blair had to persuade the Queen to go public because people were not happy with the royals.
Lili: that WAS a joke!
I have no idea what she would put up with. Having to wait for Charles all her life I would guess she would put up with a lot. Who knows, who cares?
Words similar to those were spoken by former Secretary of State Colin Powell when he said that the United States should bring in more clergy, more teachers, and more journalists from Islamic countries.
I met Gen. Powell many years ago and he was indeed very multicultural.
Wake up. the person who wrote this is using taco-butter on you.
They are trying to convince you that the cause is already lost. Just as Naseem does on here regularly.
This is the line that tells it all. Only a sympathiser would use this term.
"are only two of 14,000 mostly-elite white Britons who have reverted to Islam."
Convert not revert.
"Whether or not Charles is dumb enough to convert to Islam does not matter; the King or Queen of Britain is one of the most powerless creatures on the face of the earth."
Posted by: Paolo
The British monarch is not powerless.
As the head of state of the U.K. and of fifteen other countries, all of which were once part of the British Empire, the powers of the Royal Prerogative are extensive, although in practice, political power is exercised today through Parliament and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
As an example, the monarch may, in theory, dismiss a Prime Minister, but convention and precedent bar such an action.
Also, the monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, as well as regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views although ultimately must accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions.
The Sovereign also plays the role of Head of State in the United Kingdom. Oaths of allegiance are made to the Queen, not to Parliament or to the nation.
The monarch's visage appears on postage stamps, on coins, and on banknotes issued by the Bank of England.
And it is as Head of State, visible seemingly everywhere, including coins and banknotes, that the monarch represents the heart and soul of a nation and its heritage and in this instance of much of the Commonwealth as well, and as such holds enormous power.
The power to inspire and shape the will of an entire people.
Look at the way the Queen Mother was looked to for inspiration during the Second World War, and how Queen Elizabeth I of England inspired her troops when she spoke to them as they prepared for battle with the Spanish Armada.
"I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.".
If only Prince Charles showed half as much backbone and loyalty to the culture and heritage of his subjects and ancestors.
As an aside, although I don't think the royalists are going to be staging a coup real soon.
The "if only more people would go to church crowd", then everything would be alright, are living in a fool's dream. It's the silly supersticious twaddle of Mohammed and Christ, and the great Gumba, or whatever, that's the problem. We are not going to defeat Islam with the weapon of another silly belief system. What will defeat it, is sticking to the winning formula of free speech, democracy, independent judicury. Our "governments", should express it's determination to defend these things, and refuse to compromise. Unlike at the moment, when they're obsessed with being "sensitive".
The above virtues mentioned, showed religion for what it is, the bastion of illiberal thought, and harsh judgements, backwards, that's why western people don't bother, we'd rather go on holiday instead.
Ian
Ian: now THAT is superstition. You are so ignorant, it never even occurs to you to wonder where those institutions come from and what system of values motivates them. But given that your phraseology shows a fanatical, intolerant and utterly unintelligent attitude, I see no reason in saying more than that you are exactly what you look - a fool.
Paolo since you know so much, maybe you can share your views on why so many British politicians are gay:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/liars_oct04.htm
I mean seriously, is there still any wonder from where the anti-Christian attitudes come from.
I agree with you about how the system is broke. It is hardly a matter of elitism, just institutionally backed suicide planted by sinister entities. Our systems need to be pulled apart, cleansed, and reassembled. Next, we need to get our populations to wake up. Every politician who wants to be candidate needs to be scrutinized from top to bottom by every person who votes.
Heck, if I’m not voting for a Christian I want to know about it. And if I am, I want to know his/her views on Christ, Christianity, other religions, whether God and Halla are the same, immigration, and giving honest direct answers. I also want the proof to back it up: church attendance, charity work, study, essays, membership, work records, and much more. Our elections have become dumb and sensationalized, when it should be hardly but…. No, don’t extend your hand to shake mine, but stick it up your ass! It will take a lot more than a handshake for my vote.
We are societies that give work top respect. Well guess what people! Studying, investigating, and electing candidates is our work. If you fail to this work, how much more scorn should you receive by those who know best the work you didn’t do.
And then some wonder what use we have of Christianity. I hope it’s not just for all that British comedy making fun of the Church. I do find them funny, even though I’m a devout Christian, but I didn’t, and I still don’t, expect them to invalidate the Church.
I don't know whether Prince Charles will convert to Islam any more than anyone else does. What I do fear is, however, that if he converted when he was King an awful lot of people would follow suit (just as Christianity rapidly superseded the Greek-based pagan religions in Rome after Constantine converted to Christianity).
This wouldn't just be people in Britain who copied a King's example, it would also include a lot of people in the British Commonwealth.
You can be prety sure that if in the early 1960s, at the height of their popularity, the Beatles had collectively converted to Islam - it's my guess - thousands of their younger fans would have converted too, even if many of them would by now have become apostates.
Incidentally, the late King George VI gifted the freehold site of Britain's most important mosque - the Regent's Park Mosque in west London - to the then tiny Muslim community of Britain during or just after WW2. I wonder how many of its worshippers know that?
Chuck should remember that in islamic countries, like iran for instance, they stone adulterers
What do you expect from a guy who went from marrying a babe, to marrying his horse.