The Queen's Christmas Message on YouTbe. You couldn't do this in America.

[gipper]

Jesus was more authentic and perhaps thus successful.

[Michael Tee]

Authentic is when you pick up the gun and fight for the people.  Nobody is more authentic than Fidel.

[gipper]

You continue to marginalize yourself. My opinion.

[Michael Tee]

I'm not concerned with marginalization, since I'm not running for office.  I already realized that Fidel Castro would not receive very high approval ratings in Amerikkka.  IMHO, marginalization has little if anything to do with authenticity or the supposed lack thereof.

It was interesting to me that you equated the posthumous "success" of Jesus with his supposed authenticity.  In my probably not so marginal POV, Jesus was a product sold to a gullible public by a bunch of unscrupulous con men, whose successors are still flogging him today for all he's worth.  If that's your version of "authenticity," you're certainly welcome to it.  Kinda reminds me of Seinfeld looking out from the screen at his audience and saying earnestly and sincerely, "We're real people.  Real television people."  It was funny with Seinfeld and it's funnier still with Jesus - - the hoax is that much bigger.

IMHO, one of the most authentic figures of all the group mentioned in this thread is the Buddha - - not that I'd pretend to know the real facts of his life from his legend, but only because of the straightforwardness and seamless integrity of his message.  Whatever the original Jesus message might have been, it's been packaged and re-packaged into senseless and self-contradictory gibberish, a pabulum for the lowest common denominator.  Fidel and Che are authentic too, but in a narrower sense of the word. 

[Stray Pooch]

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  The troops she praised are her troops.  They fight for Queen (her) and country (the U.K.)  Their officers are royally commissioned, i.e. commissioned by her.  She wasn't out of line at all.  SHE is the one who determines what's out of line and what's not.  And so far, she's done a pretty good job of it.

Being a British History buff I am completely aware of the Queen's status as head of the church.  Been that way since Henry VIII got hot for Miss Anne (with a short break when the head of the church lost his head under Cromwell, I suppose).  I am also perfectly aware of the fact that she was praising HER troops.  That is also true of the President of the United States.  He commissions the officers, he is Commander in Chief and the troops fight for our country.  The only difference is that they do not fight "for" the President in the way that Brits fight "for" the Queen.  There is neither the sense of tradition nor the residual belief in loyalty to Royalty.  (Can you imagine a Japanese person trying to say that?  I'm just asking . . .)   Nevertheless, I wasn't suggesting she was out of line.  I was pointing out that Great Britain, a nation which has absolutely and directly seen the dangers of establishment, still practice it (at least to some extent) and very few people get burned at the stake anymore.  Here in America, OTOH, a nation which was founded on a principle of disestablishment (based, in very large part, on the horrors establishment had fomented in England and other European states) we cannot ever express religious feelings or praise the troops without someone whining about theocracy or "flag waving."  I watched the Queen's message out of curiousity and was very impressed.  I especially enjoyed the comparing and contrasting of the 1957 broadcast.  Pretty neat.  She just set the record for oldest English monarch.  I'm guessing Charles III will never happen - at least in this generation.

Of course, British Monarchs named Charles haven't been the luckiest of the bunch anyway.

[Xavier_Onassis]

She just set the record for oldest English monarch.  I'm guessing Charles III will never happen - at least in this generation.

Of course, British Monarchs named Charles haven't been the luckiest of the bunch anyway.

=================================================================
I have wondered about her naming her son "Charles", too. Edward, George,William, even Albert, would seem to have been better names. I suppose that a British king could rename himself, like a Pope, but would he?

I would have admired more her if she had named him Ethelred or Egbert. The one kid who would not get teased for his name would be the Prince of Wales, I bet.

[Michael Tee]

<<I was pointing out that Great Britain, a nation which has absolutely and directly seen the dangers of establishment, still practice it (at least to some extent) and very few people get burned at the stake anymore. >>

That's an excellent point, Pooch.  I think it has to do with the fact that the English are very strong traditionalists and at the same time very pragmatic as well.  Hence the concept of constitutional monarchy and the C. of E.  Keep the FORMS, but surround them with practical safeguards.

America, founded in Revolution, CAN'T be that traditional.  In America, where the force of tradition would anchor very little, more reliance has to be placed on the law and the Constitution.  The Constitution has to be the guardian of the people's freedom, because tradition won't count for shit.   If the Bill of Rights were put to a vote today, it might not make it through.

[_JS]

<<Being born into a poor family obviously indicated a number of issues, most notably that Jesus Christ was here for EVERYONE, regardless of thier station in life.>>

Don't mean a thing if you ain't got that swing. 

Buddha was born a Prince of the realm, and he was for all sentient beings.  Karl Marx was a manufacturer's son, but he was there for the workers and peasants.  Fidel and Che were from upper-middle-class backgrounds but by their actions they were true sons of the people.

Karl Marx's father, Herschel Mordechai, was a lawyer. He was also the descendent of a long line of rabbis. Prussian law forbid Jews to practice law and he nominally converted to Protestantism.

Many socialist and communist leaders have come from the bourgeoisie as that is where they received education. V.I. Lenin is a good example. Stalin, on the other hand, came from an extremely impoverished background of Georgian peasant farmers. Ernest Bevin came from a very poor British family, whereas Tony Benn was an aristocrat.

[_JS]

<<I was pointing out that Great Britain, a nation which has absolutely and directly seen the dangers of establishment, still practice it (at least to some extent) and very few people get burned at the stake anymore. >>

That's an excellent point, Pooch.  I think it has to do with the fact that the English are very strong traditionalists and at the same time very pragmatic as well.  Hence the concept of constitutional monarchy and the C. of E.  Keep the FORMS, but surround them with practical safeguards.

America, founded in Revolution, CAN'T be that traditional.  In America, where the force of tradition would anchor very little, more reliance has to be placed on the law and the Constitution.  The Constitution has to be the guardian of the people's freedom, because tradition won't count for shit.   If the Bill of Rights were put to a vote today, it might not make it through.

Mike is, once again, spot on. Britain is a nation of tradition. Watch the opening of Parliament once and note the difference in that and the manner in which the United States begins a new legislative session.

And Pooch, Henry VIII was "Supreme Head" of the CoE, but the title was lost much sooner than Oliver Cromwell. His successor (and daughter) Queen Mary repealed the Act of Supremacy, then Elizabeth passed them again when she succeeded Mary. Elizabeth was the first Supreme Governor of the CoE as the title of "Supreme Head" was considered too haughty.

[Cynthia]

At least she is able to share her message with the world. The rest of the world is literally living in a killing field, it seems.
Benazir Bhutto will never be able to share any well wishes, now. Damn. She had a hard life....THAT'S a brave female leader.
Rawalpindi, Pakistan is the scene of chaos, now.

God bless those who walk fearless in the shadow of death.

I did enjoy the Queen's message. Perhaps a time will come when a similar "voice" for other faiths will shine on the TuBe.

[Stray Pooch]

And Pooch, Henry VIII was "Supreme Head" of the CoE, but the title was lost much sooner than Oliver Cromwell. His successor (and daughter) Queen Mary repealed the Act of Supremacy, then Elizabeth passed them again when she succeeded Mary. Elizabeth was the first Supreme Governor of the CoE as the title of "Supreme Head" was considered too haughty.

I knew. of course, that Mary Tudor tried very hard ("Bloody" hard some say) to bring back Catholicism and Elizabeth tapped danced around the issue during Mary's reign.  (One might say she didn't lose her head over the issue.) 

I read a great book a year or so ago, the name of which escapes me, that defended Mary against the "Bloody" title.  It made some excellent points, foremost among which was the fact that Mary's mother - Catherine of Aragon - had lost her position, her dignity and much of her life to Henry's lust-fueled usurpation.  Mary had a great example in Catherine, and strove to get back what Anne Boleyn had taken. 

Someday I will take the time to present my argument that the most important event in English history was the death of Arthur.  But that's for later . . .