Prince Charles is a Muslim
Discussion
It sounds a bit crazy I know but this guy thinks so
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/11/is-prince-...
At the very least some of those comments seem a bit strange for someone who will become head of the Church of England when he grows up.
This one seems especially weird
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Fo...
Total madness or is this guy on to something?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/11/is-prince-...
At the very least some of those comments seem a bit strange for someone who will become head of the Church of England when he grows up.
This one seems especially weird
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Fo...
Total madness or is this guy on to something?
Ridgemont said:
If on the otherhand he had stumbled up to the pulpit in Westminster Abbey and started holding forth on the pillars of Islam, while doing a passable impression of TE Lawrence I might be a bit more convinced.
I know it's not Westminster Abbey but he used his Christmas address on Thought for the Day to talk about Mohammed. That's what got me onto this and led me to the article linked above. Tom Logan said:
Ol' Big Ears is just an over-privileged inbred nutter and all of his inane ramblings on any subject should be treated with the contempt which they so richly deserve.
He's an over privileged inbred nutter set to be Head of State at some point in the not too distant future. Sadly.rscott said:
Er, the first source doesn't strike me as a particularly dependable one... For example, http://www.danielpipes.org/5286/was-barack-obama-a... and http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-o... .
As for the second one, he was giving a speech to Islamic studies scholars - wouldn't it make sense to make mention that he thinks the Islamic teachings also share his views on reducing man's impact on the world?
The owner of the web page isn't really the issue. It just collects the information in one place. As for the second one, he was giving a speech to Islamic studies scholars - wouldn't it make sense to make mention that he thinks the Islamic teachings also share his views on reducing man's impact on the world?
As for the second one, none of it really makes much sense to me. I think he's a deluded fool as I always have. This just sets me wondering if he's a deluded fool who has converted to Islam, because as Esseesse and others have said it does have wider implications.
rscott said:
The source makes a massive difference - or at least how the present 'facts'. For example, Charles has also visited synagogues , mosques and even Catholic churches, yet they're not reported on that site as though he's converting to those faiths.
Muslims make up a noticeable % of the UK population, so it makes sense for him to spend time learning about that religion. Just as he's done with most others.
The author of that site has a less that neutral view on Muslims too (the reason he was blocked from taking up a role as an advisor to Bush jnr a few years ago), so is obviously spinning it for his own agenda.
I didn't really take it as a value judgement on Islam either way. I'm curious as to whether he is a convert both as a citizen of the UK and an Anglican.Muslims make up a noticeable % of the UK population, so it makes sense for him to spend time learning about that religion. Just as he's done with most others.
The author of that site has a less that neutral view on Muslims too (the reason he was blocked from taking up a role as an advisor to Bush jnr a few years ago), so is obviously spinning it for his own agenda.
Maybe he does say similar things about Judaism etc (any references?), but he didn't talk about that in his Christmas address, he talked about Islam.
rscott
The first 2 just talk about his affinity with judaism and don't really suggest he has converted. The second one opens with
The long term goal of multiculturalism is the genocide of White Nations to be replaced by a 99% coffee coloured, dumbed down, debt-slave race to serve a 1% jewish master race.
Which is a starting assumption I reject.
It goes on to make a load of other assertions which don't bear much scrutiny.
You might not like the author of the article in the OP but he does seem to mostly quote mainstream news sources. Do you actually dispute what he says or just don't like the author?
The first 2 just talk about his affinity with judaism and don't really suggest he has converted. The second one opens with
The long term goal of multiculturalism is the genocide of White Nations to be replaced by a 99% coffee coloured, dumbed down, debt-slave race to serve a 1% jewish master race.
Which is a starting assumption I reject.
It goes on to make a load of other assertions which don't bear much scrutiny.
You might not like the author of the article in the OP but he does seem to mostly quote mainstream news sources. Do you actually dispute what he says or just don't like the author?
Derek Smith said:
I've read a lot about the British Civil Wars, my favourite, in the sense of most interesting, period. I've can't escape the conclusion that Chas was an idiot. Whilst the new prayer book went down with just a few objections in England, what did he think would happen in Scotland? Without the hierarchy of bishops and others more interested in their own advancement over their flock, there was no control.
A dolt.
There's lots of argument about whether he was catholic but very little evidence to suggest that was his intent. He had a catholic wife but that was little bother apart from the fact he liked her.
I've read books where the BCWs were described as religious wars but then again, I've got one that suggested that parliament was more of less Marxist in intent. I don't think it was religious other than Chas thought of himself as divine in a way. The rest was just a power struggle. It was the Roses all over again, but this time the winner took the crown but not the title.
Which raises the question that if Charles has converted to Islam wouldit be better for him to say so publicly and abdicate rather than create confusion and mistrust through ambiguity?A dolt.
There's lots of argument about whether he was catholic but very little evidence to suggest that was his intent. He had a catholic wife but that was little bother apart from the fact he liked her.
I've read books where the BCWs were described as religious wars but then again, I've got one that suggested that parliament was more of less Marxist in intent. I don't think it was religious other than Chas thought of himself as divine in a way. The rest was just a power struggle. It was the Roses all over again, but this time the winner took the crown but not the title.
Derek Smith said:
I think it would be better to have religion and the state separated completely.
It isn't though. And while I can definitely see why people think that it doesn't seem like something that's especially likely to happen in the time frame in which Charles is likely to take the throne, which must be in the next 10 years.rscott
That looks like a fairly low key coronation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff