Qualified Speaker or proper Charlie ?

[olddutch]

“Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' in order to protect the environment.

In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man's destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions - but particularly those of Islam. He said the current 'division' between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment - which goes against the grain of 'sacred traditions'.

Charles, who is a practising Christian and will become the head of the Church of England when he succeeds to the throne, spoke in depth about his own study of the Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is 'no separation between man and nature' and says we must always live within our environment's limits. The prince was speaking to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies - which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation of the religion.”

Does this man bring profound enlightenment to us all with his riveting pronouncements ?

Or

Like his Mum, in his royal job should he have to keep his gob permanently shut, where his unqualified personal views are concerned ?

[naomi24]

Whilst clearly (and inexplicably) a great ambassador for Islam, he contradicts himself somewhat in extolling the dubious virtues of what he sees as that religion's supposed intrinsic understanding of nature. At one point in his speech, he says that the increase in world population is detrimental to the natural world, but since Islam's adherents are among the worst offenders it's abundantly clear that he hasn't really thought this through.

In his seemingly unswerving praise he speaks of Islam's 'noble heritage', but that, in my opinion, is something that, along with its dignity, Islam has in recent years voluntarily abandoned. Whilst his emphasis on the benefits of looking to the past and to the spiritual could possibly be seen in some ways as commendable, his clear admiration for religion and the ancient superstitions surrounding it do absolutely nothing to promote progress. In fact quite the reverse. Organised religion is the biggest threat not only to the free intellect and to the self-respect of every human being on this planet, but to the survival of this planet itself. These are the idealistic words of an unqualified and greatly privileged man who is purposefully and continually cosseted from the real world - so yes, I think he probably should keep 'mum'.

Incidentally, on his accession to the throne he intends to become 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of the Faith'.

For anyone who's interested, here's his speech.

http://www.princeofwa...he_env_252516346.html

[joeluke]

Option 2, he's a first class d1ck head

A man who preferred a woman who looks like a horse to one of the most beautiful women in the world........shows how intelligent he is

[daffy654]

Diana was not one of the most beautiful women in the world, she was plain at best. Anyone who thinks differently needs their eyes testing!

To answer the question by olddutch.... yes Charles should keep quiet about any and all religions.

[jake-the-peg]

He's does a fine job in tirelessly demonstrating the reasons why the monarchy needs abolishing.

I particularly liked his pronouncement that he was proud to be an enemy of the Enlightenment.

Although I'm not sure that ditching a self-publicizing neurotic Lady was such a poor act of judgement

[jake-the-peg]

Oy! I didn't type Lady - I typed "b int".

AB's profanity checker's getting a bit puritanical!

[joeluke]

If Diana was plain what doesa that make the lovely Camilla then?

She's a munter

[joeluke]

^ does!

[daffy654]

I'm glad that I am not the only person who wasn't keen on Diana, I was expecting to get shot down by other posters for my comment. Having met the woman a few times I got small glimpses at the 'real' Diana and she was nothing like the popular press tried to portray her!

[daffy654]

Camilla is definitely a munter joeluke! I never said otherwise :)

[joeluke]

My original point was comparing the LOOKS of the two women, not their characters

[jake-the-peg]

Well Charles is no oil painting

I think they suit each other rather well

[ummmm]

Not everyone goes for looks. Diana might be the pretty one but I'd have a guess that she was dull as dish water. I'd prefer to be with the less attractive person with a better personality.

[ummmm]

Very true Jake....they do suit.

[naomi24]

Not that his choice of wife is relevant to this question, but I think Camilla provides the hero worship that Charles demands. Diana had the audacity to disagree with him.

[daffy654]

She wasn't even physically attractive. That stupid simpering, peering from under her fringe used to drive me mental every time she did it!!!

She was definitley not beautiful in appearance or personality in my opinion.

[jake-the-peg]

Or put another way she wanted the limelight, would do anything for attention and couldn't face being a support act.

She'd have been better suited to a life on the stage than on the public stage

[joeluke]

Daffy, think you're the one who needs their eyes testing!

[daffy654]

She was certainly a very good actress jake! After seeing her treat her entourage very badly and then be charming and smiling for the public in the blink of an eye I can attest to that!

[ummmm]

What talents did she have Jake? She could barely speak...!!