Are You Pro-UK or Anti-UK?

[poiuytrewq0987]

I'm curious about what is the general opinion of the UK among British posters here.

I guess to describe it properly would be asking you guys if you enjoy being identified as British, see yourself as part of the greater British people?

[Beorn]

I don't like being identified as a British person, I'd rather be identified as an Englishman (or other).

... but I don't mind being considered a British citizen.

A real pet peeve of mine is people, who really should know better, saying Britain when they mean England, and England when they mean Britain.

[Treffie]

... but I don't mind being considered a British citizen.

A real pet peeve of mine is people, who really should know better, saying Britain when they mean England, and England when they mean Britain.

It's usually Americans who say this :)

I'm Welsh first, then British. I don't dislike being called British though. If anyone calls me English, I will keel them and speet on their grave! :p

[Beorn]

It's usually Americans who say this :)

...Yeah! I'd agree with that, but would say that on the whole it seems to me that it is mostly the Irish and Scottish. Perhaps reflective of the circles I present my opinions amongst?


If anyone calls me English, I will keel them and speet on their grave! :p

If anyone called you English, I'd spit on their grave!!
How dare they think you English!! :eek: :D

[Murphy]

I oppose the United Kingdom because the very nature of the British State was to rob the independence and right to self-determination from the people of the British Isles, and put it in the hands of the Judeo-Protestant banking elite.

[RoyBatty]

Judeo-Protestant banking elite

My view is that "Church of England" or "Anglican" is NOT Protestant. It's watered down Catholicism, confusingly rebranded as being "Protestant".

The Papal fasttrack conversion process for Anglicans to Catholicism confirms this.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100015835/popes-anglican-offered-accepted-by-traditional-anglican-communion-in-britain/

[Germanicus]

I oppose the United Kingdom because the very nature of the British State was to rob the independence and right to self-determination from the people of the British Isles, and put it in the hands of the Judeo-Protestant banking elite.

Or to prop up financially and carry a cow stealing nation.

English first.....British second.

[Murphy]

My view is that "Church of England" or "Anglican" is NOT Protestant. It's watered down Catholicism, confusingly rebranded as being "Protestant".

Of course it's watered-down Catholicism. It is a pale imitation of Catholicism. What do you think evil is but corrupted good? The path to hell is paved with good intentions, as it were.

But it's still Protestant.


The Papal fasttrack conversion process for Anglicans to Catholicism confirms this.

It's hardly everyday Anglicans to whom this has been offered to.

[Liffrea]

I’m more pro than I am anti UK but I have no loyalty to it.

As for British I’m indifferent to being called so, I’m English as far as I am concerned and that’s all that matters.

[Freomæg]

Another 'English first, British second' here. Britain has far more imminent concerns than its Unification. In fact, I feel like banging my head against a wall when I encounter those proud Englishmen who think that English independence is the most important thing right now. It can be dealt with in the future once Britain is saved.

[RoyBatty]

But it's still Protestant.


It's called Protestant, depending on whose definitions one reads and chooses to accept but the COE's characteristics, beliefs, practices, culture etc hasn't got much in common with mainstream Protestant Christianity.

There are arguments for and against but overall Anglicanism is more closely related to Roman Catholicism imo.


Excerpt from Wiki:

Anglicans
The separation of the Church of England and Church of Ireland from Rome under King Henry VIII did not take a Protestant form.


However by the efforts of Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas Cromwell, both with Lutheran sympathies[15], the Churches assumed a Protestant character, and under King Edward VI the Churches became openly Protestant, adopting Calvinist doctrines in the Forty-Two Articles, restored under Queen Elizabeth I.

Thereafter the defence of Protestantism in Britain and Ireland became a major political issue, culminating in the deposition of King James II & VII and the settlement of the Crown in the line of Princess Sophia and "the heirs of her body being Protestant".

In the nineteenth century some of the Tractarians proposed that the Church of England and the other Anglican churches are not Protestant, but a middle path between Rome and Protestantism[citation needed]. This assertion was attacked by, amongst others, the Church Association.[16]
Today, many Anglicans do not consider themselves Protestant.[citation needed]



"Many of the new Anglican formularies of the mid sixteenth century corresponded closely to those of contemporary Reformed Protestantism; but by the end of the century, the retention in Anglicanism of many traditional liturgical forms and of the episcopate was already seen as unacceptable by those promoting the most developed Protestant principles.

In the first half of the 17th century the Church of England and associated episcopal churches in Ireland and in England's American colonies were presented by some Anglican divines as comprising a distinct Christian tradition, with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media, between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; a perspective that came to be highly influential in later theories of Anglican identity."

[British and Proud]

My name should give you a clue...

[poiuytrewq0987]

My name should give you a clue...

Great signature picture. :) I think I should make something similar for Yugoslavia. ;)

[Murphy]

There are arguments for and against but overall Anglicanism is more closely related to Roman Catholicism imo.

It is as equally related to Catholicism as is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.. that is, it iss equally Protestant and its foundations equally lie in a heresy that should have been squashed.

It is the closest in a mere superficial sense of course, and there are congregations which have a rather similiar spirituality. But they're still not Catholic. They are Protestant. It doesn't matter how similiar they may come to the Catholic Church. The Church's power is not in its mere rituals and prayers.

Anglicans will hang and burn just as well as their other Protestant cousins.

[Lenny]

Great signature picture. :) I think I should make something similar for Yugoslavia. ;)The big difference: All the nations of the UK are the same religion: Protestant. (Except the IRA supporters in Ulster, whose elected leaders refuse to serve in the British Parliament because it means swearing allegiance to the Queen.:rolleyes:)

Yugoslavia had three religions: Mohammedans, Papists, and "The 'Dox" :D :p

[Lenny]

It's called Protestant, depending on whose definitions one reads and chooses to accept but the COE's characteristics, beliefs, practices, culture etc hasn't got much in common with mainstream Protestant Christianity.

There are arguments for and against but overall Anglicanism is more closely related to Roman Catholicism imo.

There is no Up or Down answer on that. It's all in the eye of the beholder. There are pro-Roman members of the Church of England who want to say it is "Catholic without the Pope" and others who say the precise opposite: That CoE is as much Protestant as any continental church. I get the feeling that the former is gaining steam in the post-1945 world for various reasons.

Over the past 500 years, at different times the pendelum has swung back and forth between the two camps. Nonetheless, the Protestant side has almost always had the upper hand, sometimes very strongly so. As you wrote, the authors of the "39 Articles" created one of the most fiercely anti-Catholic and Reform-minded documents that had ever hitherto been written in the English language. And there is no doubt where Cromwell and his men stood on the Roman Catholic Question -- they executed a king for not being anti-Catholic enough!

Politically, the CoE is definitely in the Protestant camp. If you say it's not, then you can deconstruct any movement as "not really protestant". There is no solid definition of what "Protestant" is supposed to mean.

[Murphy]

The big difference: All the nations of the UK are the same religion: Protestant. (Except the IRA supporters in Ulster, whose elected leaders refuse to serve in the British Parliament because it means swearing allegiance to the Queen.:rolleyes:)

You know, if you want to speak of Ulster as a nation, then do so correctly. In which case you would need to count 9 Counties, not 6. In which case, it's Catholic ;).

[poiuytrewq0987]

The big difference: All the nations of the UK are the same religion: Protestant. (Except the IRA supporters in Ulster, whose elected leaders refuse to serve in the British Parliament because it means swearing allegiance to the Queen.:rolleyes:)

Yugoslavia had three religions: Mohammedans, Papists, and "The 'Dox" :D :p

This is why I support the idea of the creation of a Yugoslav Church separate from all three current religious factions.

[Nationalitist]

This is why I support the idea of the creation of a Yugoslav Church separate from all three current religious factions.

Based on what? On concepts of racialist wanking?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Based on what? On concepts of racialist wanking?

Oh yes, your posts are so insightful.

[a device]

Oh yes, your posts are so insightful.
Just like his profile: he doesn't have the balls to tell us anything about his location or ethnicity.

Anyway, back to topic.
For me:
Lancastrian>English>British>European>White


In fact, I feel like banging my head against a wall when I encounter those proud Englishmen who think that English independence is the most important thing right now. It can be dealt with in the future once Britain is saved.

Yes, I know what you mean.
But deconstructing the Union could have positive effects, even in the short term.
The UK is a mere political, socio-economic concept. That's why it was invented: to consolidate the then power hierarchies, especially the one of the Scottish King James VI.

By giving England its freedom back, the English may then realise a certain ethnic solidarity in themselves, going for a free land, above an economic comfort (which will end shortly, anyway).


If anyone calls me English, I will keel them and speet on their grave!
I really feel for the Welsh. In my book they are a completely unique, great people, who have been sold out by Henry VII and Henry VIII (Welsh and half-Welsh, respectively).
It was that father and son who did not even give Wales the respect of Union. Rather, they both oversaw the merging of Wales into England.

Wales should be independent IMO. I have a great admiration for the land, which technically is a Principality of England.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Just like his profile: he doesn't have the balls to tell us anything about his location or ethnicity.

Anyway, back to topic.
For me:
Lancastrian>English>British>European>White

Yes, I know what you mean.
But deconstructing the Union could have positive effects, even in the short term.
The UK is a mere political, socio-economic concept. That's why it was invented: to consolidate the then power hierarchies, especially the one of the Scottish King James VI.

By giving England its freedom back, the English may then realise a certain ethnic solidarity in themselves, going for a free land, above an economic comfort (which will end shortly, anyway).


I really feel for the Welsh. In my book they are a completely unique, great people, who have been sold out by Henry VII and Henry VIII (Welsh and half-Welsh, respectively).
It was that father and son who did not even give Wales the respect of Union. Rather, they both oversaw the merging of Wales into England.

Wales should be independent IMO. I have a great admiration for the land, which technically is a Principality of England.

But you do realize without the UK, England won't be a much of a military and economic power like it is right now... right?

[Beorn]

But you do realize without the UK, England won't be a much of a military and economic power like it is right now... right?

Without the UK England would be considerably more successful economically. It could be even more successful if we manage to recapture diplomatically the sea stolen off of us by Scotland. The UK without England, on the other hand, would suddenly become second world countries overnight, ultra reliant upon EU handouts (which England would not be in, with a bit of prolongued handwringing and shouting).

As for the military thingy, who cares. England has had its fair share of wars and petty European and worldwide nonsense. Let the US and any other hungry land grabbing colonial power have the centre stage.

[a device]

But you do realize without the UK, England won't be a much of a military and economic power like it is right now... right?
First, Void, let me refer you to the excellent reply by BWW just above. ;)

Secondly, I am (shush!) a.... Nationalsocialist. (Sorry, it's just that us NS don't seem very welcome around these parts :().
Anyway... the reason I mention my belief system is so you believe me when I say: I couldn't give a flying truck what England's consequent military and economic status would be, in the event of deconstruction of the Union.

If the business and the shekels leech away from England, it could even be a cleansing, Cathartic process.

btw Q. when was England/Britain last bankrupted in its entirety?

A. 1945. WWII bankrupted the whole island and layed the way for America to 'rule the waves'.

[poiuytrewq0987]

First, Void, let me refer you to the excellent reply by BWW just above. ;)

Secondly, I am (shush!) a.... Nationalsocialist. (Sorry, it's just that us NS don't seem very welcome around these parts :().
Anyway... the reason I mention my belief system is so you believe me when I say: I couldn't give a flying truck what England's consequent military and economic status would be, in the event of deconstruction of the Union.

If the business and the shekels leech away from England, it could even be a cleansing, Cathartic process.

btw Q. when was England/Britain last bankrupted in its entirety?

A. 1945. WWII bankrupted the whole island and layed the way for America to 'rule the waves'.


Haha, it's fine if you align yourself with National Socialism. I'm no big fan of capitalism either. It was Churchill who wanted war with Hitler. Hitler only wanted the return of pre-WW1 borders. It's ridiculous to think Hitler wanted the control of the world or anything like that. Poland was going to give up Prussia in fact until Churchill and France guaranteed Poland's sovereignty over Prussia which made WW2 inevitable. And it's because of Churchill that the British Empire no longer exists. Newly independent rogue states such as India or Pakistan now possess nuclear weapons, and they could launch one of those nuclear missiles at us any day and cause European casualties numbering in millions.

[Osweo]

Lancastrian>English>British>European>White
:thumb001:
I'm Manc>Lancs>Northern>English etc., though! :D

Henry VII and Henry VIII (Welsh and half-Welsh, respectively).
:chin: Half Welsh and Quarter Welsh, more like, unless Edmund himself already had a bit of English/Norman in him.