Royal green?
Mike Lyle
a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
green. Or is my telly all wrong?
And the motorcade was called a "cavalcade" by all concerned. Is that
all right these days?
But I'm glad I lived to see this day (some of it through quite a
blur). Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have been the officer who
invited the Queen to inspect an Irish Republic guard of honour? You
couldn't get more memorably symbolic than that on a day dripping with
symbolism.
--
Mike.
Garrett Wollman
Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>green. Or is my telly all wrong?
Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
<http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
Compare the horizontal blue stripe immediately to the right of her
shoulder.
Not saturated enough to be turquoise in my view. I could imagine it
being called blue in Japan, however.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Mike Lyle
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <d0p5t6lfkptbapdmr...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>
>Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
><http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
>Compare the horizontal blue stripe immediately to the right of her
>shoulder.
>
>Not saturated enough to be turquoise in my view. I could imagine it
>being called blue in Japan, however.
>
That's greener than on my TV. Looks as though I may have to make
adjustments.
--
Mike.
Skitt
> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
I saw green.
>
> And the motorcade was called a "cavalcade" by all concerned. Is that
> all right these days?
It seems to be.
<snip>
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Stephen
It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
that's why it's not pure green.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <d0p5t6lfkptbapdmr...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>
>Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
><http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
>Compare the horizontal blue stripe immediately to the right of her
>shoulder.
>
>Not saturated enough to be turquoise in my view. I could imagine it
>being called blue in Japan, however.
>
Is the colour of the Queen's coat a nod toward Irish Green and that of
the President's coat a nod toward Royal Purple?
http://www.peterduncanson.net/temp/President%20and%20Queen.jpg
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Garrett Wollman
Stephen <cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
>opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
>the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
>that's why it's not pure green.
I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
than there were practicing Anglicans in England, if by "practicing" we
mean "attends church services more than twice a year".[2]
-GAWollman
[1] Many of them from Ireland or of Irish descent.
[2] Since the Established Church is, AIUI, an opt-out arrangement,
without this restriction it would clearly not be true. I'd love to
know how many people who are nominal Anglicans actually believe what
their church nominally believes. In those parts of Britain where the
Anglican Church is not Established, how high does it rank -- second or
third?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Leave those buttons alone!
I've just posted a screen capture from Irish TV.
Here is another:
http://www.peterduncanson.net/temp/President%20and%20Queen%20inside.jpg
You can compare the colour of Brenda's coat with the green of the Irish
tricolour behind.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
It is a meeting to cement friendship between the Irish Republic and the
United Kingdom.
Stephen
> In article<ZDCAp.4424$aH5...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
>> opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
>> the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
>> that's why it's not pure green.
>
> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
> than there were practicing Anglicans in England, if by "practicing" we
> mean "attends church services more than twice a year".[2]
>
> -GAWollman
>
Yeah, but the Queen is the head of the Anglican church, innit?
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
Understood. But from afar Ireland appears to be still divided, with a
fraught history of conflict that isn't as simple as Catholic/Protestant.
I imagine the Queen checked it beforehand to ensure it would be proper
and acceptable. Wearing the colour of the former enemy symbolises
rapprochement, and the Irish protestants don't mind, I suppose.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
They do not mind. A typical attitude would be "About ******* time too".
The President of the Irish Republic visits Northern Ireland from time to
time. It is time to begin to even the score by Northern Ireland's Queen
visiting the Republic.
Duggy
Royal green is people!
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On 18/05/2011 7:25 AM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
> > The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
> > a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
> > blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
> > green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>
> > And the motorcade was called a "cavalcade" by all concerned. Is that
> > all right these days?
>
> > But I'm glad I lived to see this day (some of it through quite a
> > blur). Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have been the officer who
> > invited the Queen to inspect an Irish Republic guard of honour? You
> > couldn't get more memorably symbolic than that on a day dripping with
> > symbolism.
> It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
> opposite sides in the Irish conflict.
Are you confusing The Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland (part
of the UK).
> Isn't she wearing the colour of
> the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
> that's why it's not pure green.
Wrong side of what? There's no conflict in the Republic of Ireland.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> In article <ZDCAp.4424$aH5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
>
> Stephen <calder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
> >opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
> >the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
> >that's why it's not pure green.
>
> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
> than there were practicing Anglicans in England, if by "practicing" we
> mean "attends church services more than twice a year".[2]
>
> -GAWollman
>
> [1] Many of them from Ireland or of Irish descent.
>
> [2] Since the Established Church is, AIUI, an opt-out arrangement,
> without this restriction it would clearly not be true. I'd love to
> know how many people who are nominal Anglicans actually believe what
> their church nominally believes. In those parts of Britain where the
> Anglican Church is not Established, how high does it rank -- second or
> third?
Of course, if she becomes a Catholic the Queen loses her job.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Understood. But from afar Ireland appears to be still divided, with a
> fraught history of conflict that isn't as simple as Catholic/Protestant.
> I imagine the Queen checked it beforehand to ensure it would be proper
> and acceptable. Wearing the colour of the former enemy symbolises
> rapprochement, and the Irish protestants don't mind, I suppose.
She was in the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland.
===
= DUG.
===
Stephen
And no Irish Republic interest in it? And no reason for the high level
of security mounted?
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
Ah.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
The President of Ireland has crossed the border into Northern Ireland at
least twice to see the Queen when she, the Queen, has been in the
province.
The first time I recall was in 2008. They met in a house that was the
family home of an AUE regular, Nick Spalding, and is now the official
residence of the Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast [1]:
http://www.peterduncanson.net/temp/entry1.jpg
http://www.peterduncanson.net/temp/group1.jpg
The Queen was back the following year and the president nipped across
the border again to see her:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5293134/Queen-meets-Irish-President.html
[1] Three years ago Nick said in reply to David the Omrud:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.usage.english/Lennoxvale,/alt.usage.english/pOkGYflQoNA/3cJlfKuyJv4J
or
http://tinyurl.com/6zseuhl
You may need to scroll up a couple of messages]
<quote>
The house, Lennoxvale, was built by my great-grandfather John Ward in
the 1870s. He sold it in 1906 to Sir William Whitla, a doctor of some
renown, who left it to Queen's College when he died in 1933 for use as
the Vice-Chancellor's residence. My elder daughter and I were in
Belfast for another reason last year and called by. The current V-C and
his wife welcomed us, gave us tea and let us wander around and take
photos.
My mother was born there, her mother went home to mum for her first
child; my mother did the same, I was born in her mother's house.
> I see the doors have been replaced.
Very little else has to the outside observer. I am sure the kitchen and
plumbing have been updated a bit. The present V-C thinks some of the
furniture has always been there.
54.577751° -5.936605° will find it.
<endquote>
Robert Bannister
> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
Looked blue to me too.
--
Robert Bannister
Stephen
>
> The Queen was back the following year and the president nipped across
> the border again to see her:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5293134/Queen-meets-Irish-President.html
>
> [1] Three years ago Nick said in reply to David the Omrud:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.usage.english/Lennoxvale,/alt.usage.english/pOkGYflQoNA/3cJlfKuyJv4J
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6zseuhl
>
> You may need to scroll up a couple of messages]
>
Interesting, thank you.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Robert Bannister
> In article<d0p5t6lfkptbapdmr...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Lyle<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>
> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
> <http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
> Compare the horizontal blue stripe immediately to the right of her
> shoulder.
>
> Not saturated enough to be turquoise in my view. I could imagine it
> being called blue in Japan, however.
Definitely green in your picture, but in the ones I saw.
--
Robert Bannister
Nasti J
> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
was absolutely green on my TV - better get that telly checked
Duggy
> On 18/05/2011 10:36 AM, Duggy wrote:
> > On May 18, 8:28 am, Stephen<calder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
> >> that's why it's not pure green.
> > Wrong side of what? There's no conflict in the Republic of Ireland.
I don't understand. Do you mean "And no interest in the North Ireland
conflict in the Irish Republic?" or "And no interest in what the Queen
wears in Ireland in the Provisional IRA?"
> And no reason for the high level of security mounted?
Yes, threats.
But, if the Queen is in the Republic of Ireland the national colour of
which is green then wearing green is a nice gesture. If the Scottish
Protestants in Northern Ireland get upset by that that's their issue
and they need to get out more.
===
= DUG.
===
R H Draney
>
>In article <d0p5t6lfkptbapdmr...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>
>Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
><http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
>Compare the horizontal blue stripe immediately to the right of her
>shoulder.
>
>Not saturated enough to be turquoise in my view. I could imagine it
>being called blue in Japan, however.
In Japan they call green traffic lights and green grass blue....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Jared
I would call that cyan. It looks like #00ffff.
Roland Hutchinson
Awright, lads, then! No more making fun of the color rendering on
American TV! (There's been no sport in it since we all went digital,
anyway.)
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Jared
Seriously, this is the dumbest disagreement over colors ever.
I checked, and the color in the image that was provided was #5cfef1.
That's almost _exactly_ equal parts green and blue.
No wonder different people call it differently.
This is about semantics, not color perception.
Roland Hutchinson
Something like that.
Once again: She is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Jesus
Christ is considered to be the head. (Henry VIII did take the title
"Supreme Head" rather than "Supreme Governor"--without, however, one
expects, to deprive Jesus of his due. Later monarchs are content to use
"Governor", though in practice of course they wield about as much power
over the church as they do over the state -- or slightly less.)
In any event, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England becomes a
Presbyterian in good standing whenever he or she steps north of the
Scottish border. This is known as "the mystery of faith."
Stephen
Colour perception and semantics don't mix because colour perception
differs. That's before different reproduction techniques confuse the
subject further.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Garrett Wollman
Jared <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I checked, and the color in the image that was provided was #5cfef1.
No, that's the projection of Brenda's outfit's color into the sRGB
color space (required by the JPEG standard), after a significant
amount of processing in the digital camera that took the photo if not
in Photoshop at the photo editor's desk in the newsroom. (At a
minimum, a white balance will have been applied -- hopefully manually
with the aid of a grey card or white-balance filter rather than
relying on the camera's auto-white-balance feature to get it right.)
The television standard used in Europe specifies a different color
space entirely, and the implementation in any given television set is
only an approximation (consumer TVs generally not being designed with
colorimetry in mind).
-GAWollman
Jared
> In article <69f00a64-1b7a-4914-bc1c-43fd32cd2...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I checked, and the color in the image that was provided was #5cfef1.
>
> No, that's the projection of Brenda's outfit's color into the sRGB
> color space (required by the JPEG standard), after a significant
> amount of processing in the digital camera that took the photo if not
> in Photoshop at the photo editor's desk in the newsroom. (At a
> minimum, a white balance will have been applied -- hopefully manually
> with the aid of a grey card or white-balance filter rather than
> relying on the camera's auto-white-balance feature to get it right.)
> The television standard used in Europe specifies a different color
> space entirely, and the implementation in any given television set is
> only an approximation (consumer TVs generally not being designed with
> colorimetry in mind).
>
> -GAWollman
Of course it's been processed.
Is your point that it's a complete coincidence that people were
arguing about it being green or blue when the JPG is just about pure
cyan in RGB space?
I think not.
bob
> On 18/05/2011 8:48 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Indeed, in the various conflicts from the Easter Rising through the
Irish Civil War and all that unpleasantness, a not insignificant
number of important Nationalists were Church of Ireland (ie the branch
of the CofE in Ireland) rather than Catholic. The conflation of
Protestant/Catholic with Unionist/Nationalist is a more recent
development. Of course most of the Protestants in the North are not
Anglican, but more generally Presbyterians (and often members of
"independent" churches with no direct links to either the established
church in England or Scotland).
Robin
bob
wrote:
> The President of Ireland has crossed the border into Northern Ireland at
> least twice to see the Queen when she, the Queen, has been in the
> province.
Not only that, the President of Ireland has visited the Queen in
London in an official capacity, and it's regarded as good form
diplomatically to repay such a visit. (And giving and receiving state
visits are a major part of the job description for both the Queen and
the President of Ireland.)
Robin
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
I have not seen any reports of Protestants in Northern Ireland
expressing annoyance at the Queen's wearing green. I'll keep an eye on
today's papers in Northern Ireland.
Some people's nerves may be jangled by the sight of her in green because
green is the colour of the IRA, the terrorist group that has been
attacking Protestants in Northern Ireland.
You used the standard phrase "they need to get out more". Unfortunately
it was particularly when they went out of their homes that they were
likely to be attacked by the IRA and their supporters using green as
their symbolic colour.
J. J. Lodder
> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green.
That's another prejudice going to pieces.
I was under the impression that she always
shows herself to her subjects wearing something
with some awful green colour,
Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm with Mike on this. It wasn't my idea of green when I saw it on TV,
and it's not my idea of green if I follow the link (closer to green
than to orange (which is probably just as well), but still...). It's
certainly not the green of the Irish flag.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> In article <ZDCAp.4424$aH5...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
> Stephen <cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
>> opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
>> the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
>> that's why it's not pure green.
>
> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
> than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists
who choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
By no means. There was some kind of event at the end of last month when
she appeared in yellow, if I remember.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> Indeed, in the various conflicts from the Easter Rising through the
> Irish Civil War and all that unpleasantness, a not insignificant
> number of important Nationalists were Church of Ireland (ie the branch
> of the CofE in Ireland) rather than Catholic.
Nearly all of them, if memory serves.
Before the partition the Protestant population of what is now the
Republic of Ireland was relatively much larger than it is today. My
mother was a Protestant from Dublin. When she was born (1910) there was
nothing unusual about that.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
This will not prove anything:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue
Using the examples there I can describe the coat as either green or
blue. To me, it is more green than blue.
At the moment I'm watching the Queen on TV (live). She is wearing a hat
that is undoubtedly light-blue in daylight and greenish-blue in
artificial light. (There's nothing unusual in that.)
Peter Moylan
> [2] Since the Established Church is, AIUI, an opt-out arrangement,
> without this restriction it would clearly not be true. I'd love to
> know how many people who are nominal Anglicans actually believe what
> their church nominally believes.
Do Anglicans still have beliefs? I thought it had become the church of
choice for those with no opinion on religion.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
annily
That's what it looks like on my monitor too.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.
Phil C.
> I've just posted a screen capture from Irish TV.
> Here is another:
> http://www.peterduncanson.net/temp/President%20and%20Queen%20inside.jpg
>
> You can compare the colour of Brenda's coat with the green of the Irish
> tricolour behind.
>
Hmm.... I'm no fashion expert but perhaps the orange in the tricolour
would have suited her better?
--
Phil C.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Yes. Sometime in the last 40 years leading figures in the Republic were
trying to convince Northern Ireland's Unionists (largely Protestants) of
the merits of a united Ireland. They said that Protestants,
non-Catholics, would be fine in such a united country. They were
reminded of the decline in numbers of Protestants in the Republic. The
pro-united-Ireland persons recoiled.
This gives statistics and describes the main reasons for the decline:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html
One cause:
In the Republic of Ireland, since 1926, there has been a constant
pattern of Protestants marrying Catholics. In most counties
(exceptions being Cork, Dublin and the border counties) there were
insufficent Protestants to enable most Protestants to realistically
marry another Protestant, so most married Catholics. Until recently,
the Roman Catholic church had a rule that the children of
mixed-marriages had to be brought up Catholic. Therefore, in
Catholic-Protestant marriages the Protestant faith would die out
after one generation. This is the main cause of the constantly
declining Protestant population since 1926. (Historically, the
action in Irish Catholic-Protestant marriages was for the girls to
be brought up with the mother's religion, and the boys with the
father's. This traditional Irish pattern was destroyed when the
Vatican introduced the aforementioned rule early in the 20th century
causing all children to be brought up Catholic.)
The Irish government were sufficiently in thrall to the Catholic Church
that they could not and did not tell the Church that that Vatican rule
was unconstitutional in the Irish Republic as it was in breach of
Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution:
Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of
religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to
every citizen.
which surely means that an adult (however defined) has a right to choose
his or her own religion and that parents have a right to choose which
religion in which to bring up each of their children.
Cheryl
But that's irrelevant, surely, since if a mixed Irish couple had the
right to choose which religion to bring their children up in, they could
perfectly well choose to bring them all up as Roman Catholic, just as
they could choose to convert to or from Roman Catholicism as adults. You
can't have freedom of choice in which the freedom to choose to obey the
Pope's take on the issue is eliminated!
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
The point is that the Church was taking the position that in a mixed
marriage the non-Catholic parent has no right to choose a non-Catholic
upbringing for his or her child. As far as the Church was (is?)
concerned the non-Catholic parent has no rights in the matter. That is a
rejection of religious freedom and the religious equality that flows
from it.
James Silverton
It's interesting that they could not keep the lawyers and politicians
out: "subject to public order and morality". Why didn't they just omit
that clause?
Mind you, the same thing happens in the French Rights of Man of 1789,
which in my opinion would be perfectly fine without the last sentence.
"4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no
one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no
limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the
enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net
J de Boyne Pollard
Side? Is it a football match? I thought that it was a state visit.
J de Boyne Pollard
> that they could not and did not tell the Church that that Vatican rule
> was unconstitutional in the Irish Republic as it was in breach of
> Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution:
> The point is that the Church was taking the position that in a mixed
> marriage the non-Catholic parent has no right to choose a non-Catholic
> upbringing for his or her child. As far as the Church was (is?)
> concerned the non-Catholic parent has no rights in the matter. That is a
> rejection of religious freedom and the religious equality that flows
> from it.
Nonetheless, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Constitutions (of countries) generally regulate what laws legislatures may enact and governments may enforce. They don't regulate organizations that aren't actually part of the government. Statutes and regulations can only be unconstitutional if they are actually state statutes and regulations (purportedly) made under the authority of the constitution in the first place. For the gory details that are specific to what is unconstitutional (more formally: repugnant to the Constitution) in Ireland, see articles 15 and 26 of the Constitution of Ireland.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
It seems that whatever colour the Queen's coat was it is being
interpreted as a shade of green.
From the News Letter (Belfast):
(from Press Association reporters)
Wearing emerald green, Her Majesty is welcomed
The Queen wore green as she arrived in Dublin...
From The Irish Times (Dublin):
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0518/1224297222031.html?via=rel
Smiling Queen emerges wearing green
MARY FITZGERALD at Baldonnel
ARRIVAL: AT EXACTLY three minutes to midday yesterday Queen
Elizabeth’s aircraft touched down on the windswept runway at
Baldonnel.
....
There were murmurs of approval from many of the gathered journalists
when they spotted what she was wearing – a jade-coloured crepe coat
over a blue and green patterned dress. "She chose green," said one.
"What a nice gesture."
....
From The Times (of London), by an Irish woman:
A new era, proof of how far my nation's vision has changed
Analysis Elaine Byrne
May 18 2011 12:01AM
Where there are no ordinary words, we revert to poetry.
When the Queen arrived in Dublin yesterday, [in her immaculate green
suit,] she was the first British monarch to do so since the visit of
her grandfather in 1911.
....
Dr Elaine Byrne is a lecturer in political science at Trinity
College Dublin
The text in parentheses is from the print version. It is not in the
online version.
Also from The Times (of London):
The Queen bows to Ireland's fallen, a gesture laden with weight of
history
They could have painted history as it unfolded in Dublin yesterday.
Three colours would have done it: green for the Queen's dress as she
became the first British monarch to set foot in the south of Ireland
for 100 years; yellow for the fluorescent jackets of the hundreds of
police officers lining the streets; and black for the balloons
released in protest by Sinn Fein.
Reconciliation, security and protest, the three big themes of the
historic visit in three big brushstrokes; a new Irish tricolour for
the week.
....
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
It seems to be Totally Officially green.
In our local evening paper, the Belfast Telegraph:
...the sartorial symbolism of the jade green hat and coat was not
lost on the crowd. Designed by Stewart Parvin, one of the Queen's
team of dressmakers, the outfit consisted of a jade crepe coat, a
silk dress echoing the green of the coat, with a pretty floral
pattern on a blue background. The outfit was, of course topped off
with the Queen's trademark hat. Rachel Trevor Morgan is the milliner
responsible for this confection, which had on-trend roses and
feathers on top.
Do I detect details copied from a press release?
Cheryl
>
> The point is that the Church was taking the position that in a mixed
> marriage the non-Catholic parent has no right to choose a non-Catholic
> upbringing for his or her child. As far as the Church was (is?)
> concerned the non-Catholic parent has no rights in the matter. That is a
> rejection of religious freedom and the religious equality that flows
> from it.
>
Actually, I suppose, they too were recognizing freedom of choice only if
the non-Catholic parent made the 'right' choice - but since they
couldn't use the power of the state to force a non-Catholic parent to
comply, I don't see this as a rights problem - more a lack of foresight
about the way writing positive rights into law causes situations in
which you end up with conflicting 'rights' which seem irreconcilable.
It's easy enough to teach a child that Mom doesn't go to Mass because
she's Protestant; somewhat more difficult to teach the child to be
simultaneously Catholic and Protestant.
If I marry someone of different beliefs than my own, I think I need
first to find out just how they're likely to impact on me and my
potential children BEFORE the wedding. If I am a Protestant and marry a
devout Catholic (or vice versa) and we don't come to some agreement
between ourselves about the children and their upbringing before the
wedding, I think any subsequent problem is due to lack of foresight, or
perhaps the blindness of love rather than an infringement on rights. The
Catholic may, naturally, wish to follow the Pope's teaching on the
matter, but the Pope isn't the person getting married and making the
agreement about child-rearing.
And I grew up in an area in which marriages between different flavours
of Protestant were considered 'mixed', never mind more exotic
combinations, so I knew of lots of solutions.
--
Cheryl
CDB
they weren't allowed to so much as step inside a Protestant church. I
don't know if that was doctrine, but it was what their priest had told
them. I do know that agreement to raise the children Catholic was
prerequisite to being married in the Church, because my (C of E)
mother had to agree to that. No kiddy, no blessee. If my father
hadn't by that time been a Catholic atheist, she would probably have
had to keep her promise.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> When I was growing up, little friends more Catholic than I told me they
> weren't allowed to so much as step inside a Protestant church.
It worked the other way round as well. I grew up with a very distorted
idea of the dreadful abominations that went on in Roman Catholic
churches. I remember being very surprised when I discovered how similar
to Anglican services they are.
I'd have been very astonished if anyone had told me in the 1950s that I
would one day be married to one of Them (albeit nominally -- she's
about as Catholic as I am Anglican, that is to say not at all.)
--
athel
Garrett Wollman
I can see atheist Unitarians regularly attending church services; I
can't see English atheists who are only considered CofE members by
default doing so. But perhaps I'm wrong. How often to English
atheists attend church? (Ignoring those who are alleged to exist
among the clergy.)
Garrett Wollman
Jared <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course it's been processed.
>
>Is your point that it's a complete coincidence that people were
>arguing about it being green or blue when the JPG is just about pure
>cyan in RGB space?
No, my point is that the color in the JPEG image need not have much to
do with the color that British posters saw on their television sets,
even in pictures of the same scene. Surely you've fiddled with the
white balance in a digital camera before?
Phil C.
> When I was growing up, little friends more Catholic than I told me
> they weren't allowed to so much as step inside a Protestant church. I
> don't know if that was doctrine, but it was what their priest had told
> them. I do know that agreement to raise the children Catholic was
> prerequisite to being married in the Church, because my (C of E)
> mother had to agree to that. No kiddy, no blessee. If my father
> hadn't by that time been a Catholic atheist, she would probably have
> had to keep her promise.
As late as the 1970s a friend found herself listening to a priest at
assembly in an English primary school - he told the children that only
Catholics would go to Heaven. The teachers (knowing there was a
non-Catholic present) shuffled nervously and looked apologetic.
It was news to me to discover that my 2xg grandparent married in a
Catholic church in 1865. I assume she (almost certainly non-conformist)
had to at least promise to raise the children as Catholics. If so, she
lied and thus went straight to Hell like the rest of us.
--
Phil C.
R H Draney
>
>On 18/05/2011 3:08 PM, Jared wrote:
>> On May 17, 10:22 pm, Nasti J<njgill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 17, 2:25 pm, Mike Lyle<mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>
>>
>> Seriously, this is the dumbest disagreement over colors ever.
>>
>> I checked, and the color in the image that was provided was #5cfef1.
>>
>> That's almost _exactly_ equal parts green and blue.
>>
>> No wonder different people call it differently.
>>
>> This is about semantics, not color perception.
>
>Colour perception and semantics don't mix because colour perception
>differs. That's before different reproduction techniques confuse the
>subject further.
Quick, what color is a Smurf?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Dr Nick
> Garrett Wollman filted:
>>
>>In article <d0p5t6lfkptbapdmr...@4ax.com>,
>>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>
>>Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>><http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>>
>>Compare the horizontal blue stripe immediately to the right of her
>>shoulder.
>>
>>Not saturated enough to be turquoise in my view. I could imagine it
>>being called blue in Japan, however.
>
> In Japan they call green traffic lights and green grass blue....r
I watched a Japanese animated film on TV at the weekend and the green
traffic light shown was distinctly blue.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
John Varela
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> The point is that the Church was taking the position that in a mixed
> marriage the non-Catholic parent has no right to choose a non-Catholic
> upbringing for his or her child. As far as the Church was (is?)
> concerned the non-Catholic parent has no rights in the matter. That is a
> rejection of religious freedom and the religious equality that flows
> from it.
It was my understanding that the non-Catholic had to agree
beforehand to the children being reared Catholic or the priest would
not marry them in the Church.
My mother was Episcopalian and my father was a nominal RC; they were
married in an Episcopal church. Her sister also married a nominal
Catholic, I don't know in what kind of church. The children of both
unions were reared Episcopalian. Their brother married a Catholic in
a Catholic church and the child of that union was reared Catholic.
The rule was that the children followed the religion of the
church-goer in the family, in this case always the women.
--
John Varela
Katy Jennison
> In article<93hmqf...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-18 00:44:39 +0200, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>>> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
>>> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
>>> than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
>>
>> Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists
>> who choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
>
> I can see atheist Unitarians regularly attending church services; I
> can't see English atheists who are only considered CofE members by
> default doing so. But perhaps I'm wrong. How often to English
> atheists attend church? (Ignoring those who are alleged to exist
> among the clergy.)
Even Richard Dawkins claims to enjoy Christmas carols.
--
Katy Jennison
Garrett Wollman
That's not the same as going to Mass regularly, which is what I'm
asking about.
Robin Bignall
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <93hmqf...@mid.individual.net>,
>Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 2011-05-18 00:44:39 +0200, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>>> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
>>> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
>>> than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
>>
>>Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists
>>who choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
>
>I can see atheist Unitarians regularly attending church services; I
>can't see English atheists who are only considered CofE members by
>default doing so. But perhaps I'm wrong. How often to English
>atheists attend church? (Ignoring those who are alleged to exist
>among the clergy.)
>
In my case never, and I wouldn't dream of describing myself as CofE or
Anglican on any form or document.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
musika
Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> typed:
Neither would a lot of English Christians. I think Garrett is confused.
I have never heard an Anglican using "Mass" for Eucharist, although there
may be some who do?
--
Ray
UK
Cheryl
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 13:21:48 UTC, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> The point is that the Church was taking the position that in a mixed
>> marriage the non-Catholic parent has no right to choose a non-Catholic
>> upbringing for his or her child. As far as the Church was (is?)
>> concerned the non-Catholic parent has no rights in the matter. That is a
>> rejection of religious freedom and the religious equality that flows
>> from it.
That was the rule. But since the people in question had other options, I
don't see it as a rejection of religious freedom any more than a
political party does when it expects members to vote for their
candidates, or for that matter, expects people to BE members before
participating in the selection of candidates. People who don't agree
with the rules can go away and join another party, or none at all.
> It was my understanding that the non-Catholic had to agree
> beforehand to the children being reared Catholic or the priest would
> not marry them in the Church.
Oh, yes. And a marriage that wasn't in a Catholic church wasn't valid in
Catholic eyes, although it was in the eyes of everyone else, of course.
The people who were bothered by this were those who truly believed in
Catholicism, and if they were marrying someone who had difficulty with
this, they would be wise to think again. It's not usually a good idea to
start off a marriage with such a serious difference of opinion about
such a basic matter as how to bring up any children.
People who were merely nominal members of the RC church (or any other)
generally didn't have many moral qualms about going through ceremonies
or making other promises that didn't mean much to them and that they
didn't intend to keep just to keep Granny or Mom and Dad happy.
> My mother was Episcopalian and my father was a nominal RC; they were
> married in an Episcopal church. Her sister also married a nominal
> Catholic, I don't know in what kind of church. The children of both
> unions were reared Episcopalian. Their brother married a Catholic in
> a Catholic church and the child of that union was reared Catholic.
> The rule was that the children followed the religion of the
> church-goer in the family, in this case always the women.
I've encountered both (1) always goes by father's religion (2) always
goes by the Catholic one, if there's a Catholic participating and (3)
starting off by following the father's religion and when he proved to
completely lack interest in religious instruction or practices,
following the mothers (which was the case in my family). For a long time
I thought religion was something women did and men ignored.
Oh, and the one where the young couple pick one of the two religions to
encourage family unity.
Quite often, the spouse who converted at marriage turned out to be the
more religous of the two in the long run. More papist than the pope,
more royalist than the king...I'm sure there are other relevant comparisons.
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
A few do. I think they are referred to as High Church Anglicans or
Anglo-Catholics. (Those are overlapping categories.)
Prepare to be confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Catholicism
Duggy
wrote:
> > If the Scottish
> >Protestants in Northern Ireland get upset by that that's their issue
> >and they need to get out more.
> I have not seen any reports of Protestants in Northern Ireland
> expressing annoyance at the Queen's wearing green. I'll keep an eye on
> today's papers in Northern Ireland.
Tell Stephen the results. He's the one that thinks it was important.
> Some people's nerves may be jangled by the sight of her in green because
> green is the colour of the IRA, the terrorist group that has been
> attacking Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Green is the colour of the Irish republicans. IRA or not.
===
= DUG.
===
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 May 2011 13:21:48 UTC, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> The point is that the Church was taking the position that in a mixed
>> marriage the non-Catholic parent has no right to choose a non-Catholic
>> upbringing for his or her child. As far as the Church was (is?)
>> concerned the non-Catholic parent has no rights in the matter. That is a
>> rejection of religious freedom and the religious equality that flows
>> from it.
>
>It was my understanding that the non-Catholic had to agree
>beforehand to the children being reared Catholic or the priest would
>not marry them in the Church.
I don't think you'd find that in the Priest's Pocket Book Of Rules.
However, you most definitely would find priests that insisted on this.
There were priests who would insist they wouldn't perform the ceremony
if the non-Catholic wouldn't categorically agree, and priests who
would accept an answer along the lines of an agreement to give the
matter serious consideration.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
R H Draney
>>>being called blue in Japan, however.
>>
>> In Japan they call green traffic lights and green grass blue....r
>
>I watched a Japanese animated film on TV at the weekend and the green
>traffic light shown was distinctly blue.
Check out that book I recommended here recently: "Through the Language
Glass"...it begins with Homer's "wine-dark sea", spends some time discussing
whether human color-vision has been evolving since the days of Greek classicism,
and then goes on to discuss other ways that colors are perceived differently in
different cultures...(after several chapters of this as the main theme, there
follows discussion of the people whose language uses only objective compass
directions rather than references to an individual person's "left" or
"right")....
In the matter of Japanese traffic lights, the author points out that while the
Japanese language uses the word "aoi", normally translated "blue", to describe
shades that in the West would be considered "green", there is some sort of
international standard for the color of a "go" signal...the Japanese abide by
the boundaries of that standard, but their median color is much closer to the
blue end of the allowable range than is the case in other countries....r
Cheryl
I'm certain that at one time it was an absolute requirement locally, and
on a larger scale than that of an individual priest. Whether that
requirement was put in place by the local bishop, archbishop or the Pope
himself, I couldn't say. If the couple couldn't or wouldn't agree,
they'd generally get married in the more lenient church of the
non-Catholic partner, while the more conservative Catholic relatives
expressed dismay. Going back even before my time, there was an elderly
relative of a friend who as a young Catholic girl married a Protestant -
and when her family objected, married him in a Protestant church. Her
father apparently went on for years muttering about women living in sin,
and she blithely ignored him, even when she visited her mother and
siblings in the family home. I think there was eventually some sort of
reconciliation, possibly when the grandchildren started arriving.
Eventually, marriage outside any church was allowed - somewhat later in
my old home town than in most places.
It is definitely not the case nowadays - the last Catholic wedding I
attended was between a Catholic and Protestant, both from devout
families, and no such rule existed.
--
Cheryl
Peter Moylan
church wedding is held in the woman's church. If that happens to be a
Catholic church, then indeed the priest will impose conditions on the
rearing of children: no promise, no church wedding.
(That makes me wonder whether Catholic priests ever have crises of
conscience about having forced a parishioner to go to a heathen church,
or even worse to the Devil's registry office.)
On the other hand, my maternal grandfather - from an Irish Catholic
family - and grandmother - from a Scottish Presbyterian[1] family - were
married in a Catholic church. A cathedral, even. It's a pity that
there's nobody left to tell me the story behind that. I do know that my
grandmother became a holier-than-thou convert.
[1] I might be forced to revise that claim. Checking my records, I see
that my grandmother's parents (a Scot from Liverpool, and an
Englishwoman from Edinburgh) were married in an Anglican church, and
that her father is buried in the Methodist part of a cemetery. Perhaps
that side of the family had stopped being dogmatic about which religion
they subscribed to.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> On 5/18/2011 8:14 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> The Irish government were sufficiently in thrall to the Catholic Church
>> that they could not and did not tell the Church that that Vatican rule
>> was unconstitutional in the Irish Republic as it was in breach of
>> Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution:
>>
>> Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of
>> religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to
>> every citizen.
>
> It's interesting that they could not keep the lawyers and politicians
> out: "subject to public order and morality". Why didn't they just omit
> that clause?
Keeping it in is a guard against unintended consequences. For example,
a recent Irish law against blasphemy - I don't know whether it's yet
been repealed - would, if taken literally, make it a crime to speak out
against Sharia law. The intent of that law, as I understand it, was to
enforce another Article of the Constitution that contradicted Article
44.2.1.
Peter Moylan
>>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>>>> <http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
After ignoring this discussion for a while, I was finally tempted to
look at the picture. To me, that's a very pure blue.
Don't take that assertion too seriously, though. I've always had
trouble telling the difference between green and blue.
Robert Bannister
> On 2011-05-18 00:44:39 +0200, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
> said:
>
>> Stephen <cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
>>> opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
>>> the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
>>> that's why it's not pure green.
>>
>> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
>> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
>> than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
>
> Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists who
> choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
Really? I thought the official non-religion was "See o'Vee". That's what
we were always taught to say.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article<93hmqf...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-18 00:44:39 +0200, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>>> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
>>> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
>>> than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
>>
>> Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists
>> who choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
>
> I can see atheist Unitarians regularly attending church services; I
> can't see English atheists who are only considered CofE members by
> default doing so. But perhaps I'm wrong. How often to English
> atheists attend church? (Ignoring those who are alleged to exist
> among the clergy.)
I used to until I was 19 and could escape.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
I enjoy Christmas carols and a very great deal of Christian music. I
also love Father Christmas and Grimms' fairy tales. My likings have
nothing to do with my beliefs or lack thereof.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
> But that's irrelevant, surely, since if a mixed Irish couple had the
> right to choose which religion to bring their children up in, they could
> perfectly well choose to bring them all up as Roman Catholic, just as
> they could choose to convert to or from Roman Catholicism as adults. You
> can't have freedom of choice in which the freedom to choose to obey the
> Pope's take on the issue is eliminated!
How can it be a free choice when the Pope has decreed that all children
must be brought up as Catholics and that 'you' are a bad Catholic if you
don't follow this? No Protestant church brought this kind of pressure to
bear.
--
Robert Bannister
James Silverton
>>>>> Mike Lyle<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>>> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>>>>> <http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
> After ignoring this discussion for a while, I was finally tempted to
> look at the picture. To me, that's a very pure blue.
>
> Don't take that assertion too seriously, though. I've always had
> trouble telling the difference between green and blue.
>
and green.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net
Jerry Friedman
wrote:
> On 5/18/2011 8:14 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On 2011-05-18 11:21:31 +0200, bob<rcp...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> [ ... ]
>
> >>> Indeed, in the various conflicts from the Easter Rising through the
> >>> Irish Civil War and all that unpleasantness, a not insignificant
> >>> number of important Nationalists were Church of Ireland (ie the branch
> >>> of the CofE in Ireland) rather than Catholic.
>
> >> Nearly all of them, if memory serves.
>
> >> Before the partition the Protestant population of what is now the
> >> Republic of Ireland was relatively much larger than it is today. My
> >> mother was a Protestant from Dublin. When she was born (1910) there was
> >> nothing unusual about that.
>
> > Yes. Sometime in the last 40 years leading figures in the Republic were
> > trying to convince Northern Ireland's Unionists (largely Protestants) of
> > the merits of a united Ireland. They said that Protestants,
> > non-Catholics, would be fine in such a united country. They were
> > reminded of the decline in numbers of Protestants in the Republic. The
> > pro-united-Ireland persons recoiled.
>
> > This gives statistics and describes the main reasons for the decline:
> >http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_199...
>
> > One cause:
>
> > In the Republic of Ireland, since 1926, there has been a constant
> > pattern of Protestants marrying Catholics. In most counties
> > (exceptions being Cork, Dublin and the border counties) there were
> > insufficent Protestants to enable most Protestants to realistically
> > marry another Protestant, so most married Catholics. Until recently,
> > the Roman Catholic church had a rule that the children of
> > mixed-marriages had to be brought up Catholic. Therefore, in
> > Catholic-Protestant marriages the Protestant faith would die out
> > after one generation. This is the main cause of the constantly
> > declining Protestant population since 1926. (Historically, the
> > action in Irish Catholic-Protestant marriages was for the girls to
> > be brought up with the mother's religion, and the boys with the
> > father's. This traditional Irish pattern was destroyed when the
> > Vatican introduced the aforementioned rule early in the 20th century
> > causing all children to be brought up Catholic.)
>
> > The Irish government were sufficiently in thrall to the Catholic Church
> > that they could not and did not tell the Church that that Vatican rule
> > was unconstitutional in the Irish Republic as it was in breach of
> > Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution:
>
> > Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of
> > religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to
> > every citizen.
>
> It's interesting that they could not keep the lawyers and politicians
> out: "subject to public order and morality". Why didn't they just omit
> that clause?
Because the article would allow human sacrifice if they didn't.
--
Jerry Friedman
tony cooper
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Lyle<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>>> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>>>>> <http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
>After ignoring this discussion for a while, I was finally tempted to
>look at the picture. To me, that's a very pure blue.
>
>Don't take that assertion too seriously, though. I've always had
>trouble telling the difference between green and blue.
Importing the photo into Photoshop and sampling the color tells me it
is Cyan: a color in the blue/green range. I would call the color of
the coat "Aqua", but I realize that what I see in a photograph
reproduced on the web is not what I might see in person.
tony cooper
But families did. The were, and maybe still are, many people who have
married outside of their religion and been told that they are dead to
their parents. Jews, in particular, but not just Jews.
R H Draney
>
>>>>> Mike Lyle<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>>> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>>>>><http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>
>After ignoring this discussion for a while, I was finally tempted to
>look at the picture. To me, that's a very pure blue.
>
>Don't take that assertion too seriously, though. I've always had
>trouble telling the difference between green and blue.
I haven't been following the links to the jpg, but I saw a photo of the occasion
in the (dead trees) newspaper this morning and it's undeniably green....
And you're getting that from a protanope....r
Duggy
> On 18/05/11 6:54 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>
>
> > said:
>
> >> In article <ZDCAp.4424$aH5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
> >> Stephen <calder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> It was my impression that orange and green are worn or adopted by
> >>> opposite sides in the Irish conflict. Isn't she wearing the colour of
> >>> the wrong side? (On the basis that the English are protestants). Maybe
> >>> that's why it's not pure green.
>
> >> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to be
> >> corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in England[1]
> >> than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
>
> > Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists who
> > choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
>
> Really? I thought the official non-religion was "See o'Vee". That's what
> we were always taught to say.
Anglican is CoE and related groups.
===
= DUG.
===
Peter Brooks
> Innews:b6e8t6lgsj3jfhno0...@4ax.com,
> Robin Bignall <docro...@ntlworld.com> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 May 2011 17:09:06 +0000 (UTC), woll...@bimajority.org
> > (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
> >> In article <93hmqfF35...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> On 2011-05-18 00:44:39 +0200, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett
> >>> Wollman) said:
> >>>> I would not be surprised (although by posting I am now certain to
> >>>> be corrected) if there were more practicing Roman Catholics in
> >>>> England[1] than there were practicing Anglicans in England,
>
> >>> Well maybe, but the numbers of Anglicans are inflated by us atheists
> >>> who choose "Anglican" if forced to choose something.
>
> >> I can see atheist Unitarians regularly attending church services; I
> >> can't see English atheists who are only considered CofE members by
> >> default doing so. But perhaps I'm wrong. How often to English
> >> atheists attend church? (Ignoring those who are alleged to exist
> >> among the clergy.)
>
> > In my case never, and I wouldn't dream of describing myself as CofE or
> > Anglican on any form or document.
>
> Neither would a lot of English Christians. I think Garrett is confused.
> I have never heard an Anglican using "Mass" for Eucharist, although there
> may be some who do?
>
'eucharist' though.
Peter Brooks
wrote:
>
>
> (That makes me wonder whether Catholic priests ever have crises of
> conscience about having forced a parishioner to go to a heathen church,
> or even worse to the Devil's registry office.)
>
about mere camels - they've worked hard to build their gnat straining
skills.
J de Boyne Pollard
Go and read about Souperism and think again. Then read about what Protestant-run child welfare organizations got up to in the 19th century in the United States. *Both* sects have taken what Francis Xavier said to heart, over the centuries.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
This matter was discussed a couple of decades ago in Northern Ireland
between a representative group of Protestant leaders and their Catholic
counterparts. The Protestants were seeking to negotiate a modification
of the RC rule that the children of a mixed marriage must be brought up
as Catholics. Before a marriage the non-Catholic had to make a
declaration to a priest that the children would be brought up as
Catholics.
Reports of the discussions were interesting. The Protestants had done
their homework. They had found out what the practices were in other
countries and suggested that the RC church in Ireland might adopt one of
the practices that was the closest to leaving the choice to the parents.
This apparently took the Catholics totally by surprise. The talks ended
with the Catholic delegation saying something like "Leave it with us.
We'll think about it and come back to you. It might be some months".
It was indeed many months before they returned. When they did return
they had a cunning plan. The formal requirement for the non-Catholic
parent to agree, before the marriage, to the Catholic upbringing of
children of the marriage should still remian. However, they proposed
that the meeting between the to-be-married couple and the priest should
be completely private and that any statements made by the couple should
remain secret. That would permit the priest to avoid seeking an
undertaking from the non-Catholic person without anyone knowing.
As you might imagine, this appeal to pretence and dishonesty flew with
all the grace of an seriously overweight lead balloon. The discussions
ceased.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Correct.
However, it is nerve-jangling because of its use by terrorists. If
someone has had a relative or friend murdered by someone from a
terrorist group that uses green symbolically, then any symbolic or even
non-symbolic use of green will trigger painful memories.
Cheryl
I think you don't know enough about Protestant churches. They've failed
to allow individual choice, and enforced the rules by methods ranging
from ostracism to torture and execution, although to be fair to both
sides, torture and execution were often part of the ordinary criminal
law in some places at some times.
And the Catholic doctrine of 'primacy of conscience' is well-established.
I would expect that anyone committed to a way of life would want to pass
it on to their children, so the fact that the Pope says you should do
that if you are Catholic is merely pointing out the obvious.
As for being considered a 'bad' Catholic, Protestant or member of any
group by either fellow-members or the hierarchy, well, that's so
commonplace as to make me think that there's something in human nature
that makes us all want to point out that we're good, and got everything
right, and they're bad and got everything wrong.
--
Cheryl
J de Boyne Pollard
> group by either fellow-members or the hierarchy, well, that's so
> commonplace as to make me think that there's something in human nature
> that makes us all want to point out that we're good, and got everything
> right, and they're bad and got everything wrong.
... or that it's something that gives a meme a better chance of reproduction.
John Holmes
> Stephen filted:
>>
>> Colour perception and semantics don't mix because colour perception
>> differs. That's before different reproduction techniques confuse the
>> subject further.
>
> Quick, what color is a Smurf?...r
Cooked or raw?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
John Holmes
> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
They have a lot more shades of green in Ireland than we know about.
Peter Moylan
Or even theophagy.
Peter Moylan
one word for snow, though.
Ian Jackson
<see...@instead.com> writes
>Mike Lyle wrote:
>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>
>They have a lot more shades of green in Ireland than we know about.
>
<http://www.classic-country-song-lyrics.com/fortyshadesofgreenlyricschord
s.html>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZHC1QQh8U&feature=fvst>
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes
>James Silverton wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Lyle<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's
>>>>>>>> gear was
>>>>>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear
>>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>>>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>>>>> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_0119
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> look at the picture. To me, that's a very pure blue.
>>>
>>> Don't take that assertion too seriously, though. I've always had
>>> trouble telling the difference between green and blue.
>>>
>> I don't speak Gaelic but I believe there weren't separate words for blue
>> and green.
>>
>My Irish dictionary says blue=gorm and green=glas. I could find only
>one word for snow, though.
>
http://www.lexilogos.com/english/gaelic_scottish_dictionary.htm
gives:
Blue
gorm
liath
Green
glas
gorm
gorm
uaine
http://www.irishdictionary.ie/dictionary gives:
Blue
gorm(adj)
graosta
gáirisiúil
Green
glas(adj m1)
uaine(f4)(vivid)
faiche(f4)(stretch of grass)
??
It does seem that, in Irish Gaelic, "gorm" could be either.
--
Ian
James Hogg
Irish has sixty words for rain.
--
James
Skitt
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>> The commentators -- male, to a man -- kept saying the Queen's gear was
>>>>>>> a touching tribute to Ireland because it was green. But I swear it was
>>>>>>> blue -- turquoise, if you threaten to fight me about it, but not
>>>>>>> green. Or is my telly all wrong?
>>>>>> Definitely looks green to me in this picture:
>>>>>> <http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52793000/jpg/_52793759_011999417-1.jpg>
>>
>> After ignoring this discussion for a while, I was finally tempted to
>> look at the picture. To me, that's a very pure blue.
>>
>> Don't take that assertion too seriously, though. I've always had
>> trouble telling the difference between green and blue.
>
> Importing the photo into Photoshop and sampling the color tells me it
> is Cyan: a color in the blue/green range. I would call the color of
> the coat "Aqua", but I realize that what I see in a photograph
> reproduced on the web is not what I might see in person.
My wife said the the color is teal. To me, it is bluish green. At
first, I said green. I do see a bluish cast to it, though.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Skitt
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Cheryl wrote:
>>> But that's irrelevant, surely, since if a mixed Irish couple had the
>>> right to choose which religion to bring their children up in, they could
>>> perfectly well choose to bring them all up as Roman Catholic, just as
>>> they could choose to convert to or from Roman Catholicism as adults. You
>>> can't have freedom of choice in which the freedom to choose to obey the
>>> Pope's take on the issue is eliminated!
>>
>> How can it be a free choice when the Pope has decreed that all children
>> must be brought up as Catholics and that 'you' are a bad Catholic if you
>> don't follow this? No Protestant church brought this kind of pressure to
>> bear.
>
> But families did. The were, and maybe still are, many people who have
> married outside of their religion and been told that they are dead to
> their parents. Jews, in particular, but not just Jews.
Lucky me -- my first two marriages were performed by justices of the
peace in Carson City and Reno court houses, respectively. The ceremony
for my current one was held in a little wedding chapel in Stateline, NV.
My atheism and the belief systems of my wives have not been a problem.
Good thing there are no particular rites or ceremonies that go with
atheism. I can tolerate being there for some of the religious goings-on.