When one irrelevance defends another....

[Lateralthinking1]

aaah never before have the words of Lydon seemed so appropriate

Anger is an energy or ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

[Flosshilde]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...the-Queen.html
When one irrelevance defends another, do they both become more, or less irrelevant?

I could never understand the mathematical principal that when two minuses are added (or is it multiplied?) they become a plus.

[teamsaint]

Anger is an energy or ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

careering ?!

[teamsaint]

I could never understand the mathematical principal that when two minuses are added (or is it multiplied?) they become a plus.

yup.they Spend ages figuring that out at school , instead of trying to figure out why millions of people don't have clean water, or it costs half a million pounds to buy a three bed semi in London.
Real problems.

[Lateralthinking1]

These threads are criss-crossing. It is the inconsistency that I find startling. I can take on board elements of evolutionary theory and faith. Sitting in the countryside on a sunny day, I do relate to both. In contrast, when I am stuck in a science room or a cathedral dripping with money I feel both distant from reality and lacking soul.

Yes, the inconsistency of popes who will argue against hunger and promote it. The inconsistency of a dawkins who devotes a lifetime attacking religion with the ego the size of several gods. The inconsistency of irish catholics advocating right wing behaviour and always voting for the left. The inconsistency of secularists attacking one of the most liberal churches, knowing that any multi-faith backlash will incorporate elements of the less liberal.

The radio a few days ago. Mitt Romney is mentioned. The presenter says "I don't think I have ever spoken to a Mormon" and invites someone to ring. This duly happens. A woman from Stepney or Poplar or Hackney. She gives a good account of the whys and wherefores. "Don't you feel that it is unduly rigid?" the presenter asks. "Has it affected your marriage in any way for better or worse?" "Actually", the woman says, "I live with a woman". More discussion then ensues. Yes they know, she leads a class, they all accept her fully even if they have their views.

I don't knock any of the above inconsistency as inconsistency. No. It is the refusal on all sides to accept that inconsistency is a part of any outlook. That is why, if I could justifiably be accused of being in a sort of dreamy, irrational, wishy washy belief system, all of those with the utmost conviction seem to me to be totally unreal.

[anotherbob]

I could never understand the mathematical principal that when two minuses are added (or is it multiplied?) they become a plus.

Interestingly that thought occurred to me as I was making the OP. Would one irrelevance plus another equal something (or someone) relevant. However I don't think the rules of number apply here, they are far too logical.
I used to think that Ford Prefect's summing up of planet Earth as "mostly harmless" could be applied to both Royalty and the Church nowadays, but on reflection perhaps not. I suspect that they are both complicit in the establishment's anesthetizing of the proletariat. There seem to be many millions of people who enjoy being waved at, and the sanctimonious annual ceremony at the cenotaph still seems to blank out the howls of anger that should be heard when such things are remembered.
Try as I might I cannot call to mind any instance where either Monarch or Church has had the slightest affect on my life for good or ill. I suppose that, given the choice, I would prefer a harmless old woman to wave on my behalf rather than some political clown, but as for the Church it is time it was disestablished and such political influence as it still has ended.
People with religious beliefs should be able to follow them without impinging on my life and I certainly wouldn't want to persuade them that I was right and they were wrong. The continued presence of a dynasty of German aristocrats in desirable residences the length and breadth of the UK I find either amusing or annoying, depending on which side of the bed I got out of on any particular day.

[Simon]

Interestingly that thought occurred to me as I was making the OP. Would one irrelevance plus another equal something (or someone) relevant.

Interesting to you, maybe. To me, and I suspect to most others, as uninteresting as it is philosophically pointless.

I used to think that Ford Prefect's summing up of planet Earth as "mostly harmless" could be applied to both Royalty and the Church nowadays, but on reflection perhaps not. I suspect that they are both complicit in the establishment's anesthetizing of the proletariat.

It's "anaesthetizing".

I suspect that you have been reading uncritically too much Marx. Bless! Or too many editions of SW or the Morning Star...

... the sanctimonious annual ceremony at the cenotaph still seems to blank out the howls of anger that should be heard when such things are remembered.

Leaving aside the views of the many veterans who have attended such ceremonies over the years to remember and pay homage to their friends who gave their lives for our freedoms and who don't see the ceremony as sanctimonious at all, against whom should the howls of rage be directed? Against the soldiers who died? Against the Nazis? Hirohito? George VI? The Duke of Edinburgh? Stalin? The Man in the Moon?

Try as I might I cannot call to mind any instance where ... Church has had the slightest affect on my life for good or ill.

I think you mean effect, not affect.

But regardless, try reading and understanding some history. You may not agree with the Christian Church's doctrines - that is your right - but to deny that they have had an effect on the society in which you live (assuming you live in the UK) is wholly untenable. Christian attitudes and morality have beeen fundamental in shaping the way our society - indeed, most of Western society - and its freedoms and morality have developed. Society has not not always closely followed the morality and principles taught by Christ, of course, but it is undeniable that much of what real goodness and decency that has been in evidence in western countries in general and in the UK in particular can largely be traced to the influence of christian morality over the past 2000 years. One glaring example is, of course, Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery.

[Lateralthinking1]

I am no ardent Royalist - I deliberately avoided the royal weddings - but it is Continuity and Cohesion.

This is important when it is Voter v Government v Britain v Europe v England v Wales v Scotland v Muslim v Jew v Catholic v Secularist v Protestant v Immigrant v Council House Tenant v The Rich v Gay People v The Police v The Disabled v Black People v Capitalist v Women v Children v Men v Anarchist v Manchester City v Tottenham.

Personally, I would place Royalty above Politicians and Economists and Bankers and Lawyers and Estate Agents and People on Big Brother and Overpaid Celebrities and Most Journalists and Senior Civil Servants and People Who We Bale Out and The Uncaring and Bigots and The New Radio 3 and Those Who Hold Parties When We Can't Afford Them.

I don't believe that the continuity Royalty provides is a watch mechanism. It doesn't uphold "The System".

If we were in the position of Greece now, Her Majesty, Charles, Wills and Harry would stand no chance in opposing rules from Europe which insisted all of our political parties complied with their spending limits. Similarly, if Barack or Mitt or Newt or Rick wants us to join them in bombing Iran, nobody walking around with a crown on the head would make the slightest bit of difference.

[ahinton]

It's "anaesthetizing".

Yes, some of what's being written here is at least that!

You may not agree with the Christian Church's doctrines - that is your right - but to deny that they have had an effect on the society in which you live (assuming you live in the UK) is wholly untenable. Christian attitudes and morality have beeen fundamental in shaping the way our society - indeed, most of Western society - and its freedoms and morality have developed. Society has not not always closely followed the morality and principles taught by Christ, of course, but it is undeniable that much of what real goodness and decency that has been in evidence in western countries in general and in the UK in particular can largely be traced to the influence of christian morality over the past 2000 years. One glaring example is, of course, Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery.

Yes, that's certainly true, although let's not forget the flip side of the coin in the form of the "proselytising fury" (as Guénon has it in a not altogether different context) of the crusaders and other evangelists; however, it's not the only Middle Eastern religion to exert influence on such things in parts of Europe today; furthermore, those who are the victims of aspects of that society and its conduct - its social and economic inequalities and heaven knows what else - will inevitably and rightly take a quite different view of those much-vaunted "freedoms and morality" and that "goodness and decency". One needs also to distinguish between, on the one hand, the teachings and aspirations of Christ himself and, on the other, much of what has subsequently been done in His name, not least by the "Christian Church" itself (and you don't need me to provide illustrations of this).

[ahinton]

Personally, I would place Royalty above Politicians and Economists and Bankers and Lawyers and Estate Agents and People on Big Brother and Overpaid Celebrities and Most Journalists and Senior Civil Servants and People Who We Bale Out and The Uncaring and Bigots and The New Radio 3 and Those Who Hold Parties When We Can't Afford Them.

Goodness, what a list! Would you place it/them above living British composers?...

[teamsaint]

THe "howls of anger" every November 11 could usefully be directed to all those who benefit from war, I would have thought. Arms manufacturers. Bankers.unscrupulous politicians.

[Lateralthinking1]

Goodness, what a list! Would you place it/them above living British composers?...

No but I could easily think of another 20 -

Newspaper Proprietors, Insurance Companies, Prescription Drug Monopolies, Cold Callers, Energy Companies, Phone Providers, Local Government Planning Departments, Gym Operators, Amusement Arcade People, Bookies, Used Car Salesmen, Modern Day Rachmans, Property Developers, Health Faddists, Most Trade Union Leaders, People Who Use Offshore Tax Havens, Violent Rappers, Three Car Households, Wealthy Users of Recreation Drugs, Arms Manufacturers.

.......and there's so many more!

[John Wright]

if its so tough, they could resign.
And give up the pay and perks.
They won't.
They tell us they work hard. well they would, wouldn't they.

Resign? Oh so that's what you'd do if the going got tough?

You are talking from a position of ignorance teamsaint, in a manner hardly worthy of a forum such as this.

Give up the pay and perks? They have positions of responsibility, duties, they are told what to do, and get paid for it, and most of the money is paid to employees and for services, so there are many who have jobs and businesses because of the Royals.

And THEY haven't told me they work hard, I'm told by people who meet the Royals. With then as a figurehead e.g. charities and other organisations, the teams work very hard too and attract donations, that is one of main reasons for the charity's success.

[amateur51]

The major problem with The Monarchy and The Church is that they both require that we the 'citizens' should be 'children' to their 'parent'. Thus our society exists in an atmosphere of infantilism. If we elected a Head of State, as Ireland has just done, you'd go for different qualities than they do in America or France which have party-political Presidents. We'd all have to grow up which can only be a good thing

[amateur51]

Resign? Oh so that's what you'd do if the going got tough?

Edward the [nearly] Eighth?