Basically it boils down to the fact that most British are pathetically apologetic about their own culture. Few of them have any sense of national pride and what identity there is seems to get continually diluted by legislation. To have any grasp on a national identity it can't encompass every religion, ethnic grouping, language in the world.

Speak for yourself, dear.

I'm proud to be Scottish, proud to be British, and proud that foreigners are made more welcome in our country than in many others.

I accept that people may have other unintelligible accents than my own and yet still be British, and I don't think that someone's religion is any concern of mine. Ethnic grouping is a politically-correct euphemism for race, and again, of no concern to me. I could be black as the Ace of Spades, for all you know on this forum, and my black and coloured school mates were no less Scottish than I was,

SC

I think that the existence of (mostly Christian) Hispanic culture in all of Central and South America, along with the theoretically strongly Christian populations of a couple of other continents (North America, Europe, Australia, parts of Eastern Europe/West Asia, as a start) rather gives the lie to the 'Christian minority' issue in the world; and I doubt that Christians are as much of a minority as any other family of religions in the UK.

I bet many of those who complain are in the same group who like to whinge about 'PC' because, as male chauvinists, they're not allowed to slag off women anymore, or as racists, they're not allowed to to stereotype races publicly, or as homophobes, they're beginning not to be allowed to spew venom against gays, or as nationalists, they're not supported in hatred of foreigners. The world is truly beginning to be a smaller place for the narrow-minded...

Basically it boils down to the fact that most British are pathetically apologetic about their own culture. Few of them have any sense of national pride and what identity there is seems to get continually diluted by legislation. To have any grasp on a national identity it can't encompass every religion, ethnic grouping, language in the world.

Speak for yourself, dear.

I'm proud to be Scottish, proud to be British, and proud that foreigners are made more welcome in our country than in many others.

I accept that people may have other unintelligible accents than my own and yet still be British, and I don't think that someone's religion is any concern of mine. Ethnic grouping is a politically-correct euphemism for race, and again, of no concern to me. I could be black as the Ace of Spades, for all you know on this forum, and my black and coloured school mates were no less Scottish than I was,

SC

Actually it was an Irish friend of mine who brought this up and said pretty much what I said above. She had been living in England for the past 3 years. She noticed this tremendously in comparison to Ireland. I thought it was a pretty interesting thing for her to notice and to a large extent true.

It brings up some interesting issues, its in no way rascist, but I think a lot of the time if you propose things should be more "British" you are construed as being "anti" a lot of things which isn't necessarily the case.

On one hand worldwide homogenisation plods on, but on the other hand you can't help but wonder if that is a good thing and as to how far that is possible. If people are to have a national identity it has to be based on something.

Basically it boils down to the fact that most British are pathetically apologetic about their own culture. Few of them have any sense of national pride and what identity there is seems to get continually diluted by legislation. To have any grasp on a national identity it can't encompass every religion, ethnic grouping, language in the world.

Speak for yourself, dear.

I'm proud to be Scottish, proud to be British, and proud that foreigners are made more welcome in our country than in many others.

I accept that people may have other unintelligible accents than my own and yet still be British, and I don't think that someone's religion is any concern of mine. Ethnic grouping is a politically-correct euphemism for race, and again, of no concern to me. I could be black as the Ace of Spades, for all you know on this forum, and my black and coloured school mates were no less Scottish than I was,

SC

Actually it was an Irish friend of mine who brought this up and said pretty much what I said above. She had been living in England for the past 3 years. She noticed this tremendously in comparison to Ireland. I thought it was a pretty interesting thing for her to notice and to a large extent true.

It brings up some interesting issues, its in no way rascist, but I think a lot of the time if you propose things should be more "British" you are construed as being "anti" a lot of things which isn't necessarily the case.

On one hand worldwide homogenisation plods on, but on the other hand you can't help but wonder if that is a good thing and as to how far that is possible. If people are to have a national identity it has to be based on something.

What do the French base this on? Or the Americans or the Spanish....even the Australians. How about Indians?

If people are to have a national identity it has to be based on something.

please define "national identity" and "something".

Basically it boils down to the fact that most British are pathetically apologetic about their own culture. Few of them have any sense of national pride and what identity there is seems to get continually diluted by legislation. To have any grasp on a national identity it can't encompass every religion, ethnic grouping, language in the world.

Speak for yourself, dear.

I'm proud to be Scottish, proud to be British, and proud that foreigners are made more welcome in our country than in many others.

I accept that people may have other unintelligible accents than my own and yet still be British, and I don't think that someone's religion is any concern of mine. Ethnic grouping is a politically-correct euphemism for race, and again, of no concern to me. I could be black as the Ace of Spades, for all you know on this forum, and my black and coloured school mates were no less Scottish than I was,

SC

Actually it was an Irish friend of mine who brought this up and said pretty much what I said above. She had been living in England for the past 3 years. She noticed this tremendously in comparison to Ireland. I thought it was a pretty interesting thing for her to notice and to a large extent true.

It brings up some interesting issues, its in no way rascist, but I think a lot of the time if you propose things should be more "British" you are construed as being "anti" a lot of things which isn't necessarily the case.

On one hand worldwide homogenisation plods on, but on the other hand you can't help but wonder if that is a good thing and as to how far that is possible. If people are to have a national identity it has to be based on something.

I was actually on the verge of digressing into the joys of globalisation, and how we would soon all be a politically-correct metrosexual brownish-grey, liberal mediocracy, but in that company I thought "why bother? Its sure to be misinterpreted...".

In the old days, one country was different from another, and we could trace our identity back to the place that we grew up, which was normally similar to that of our parents. Now, every country is more or less the same, and there is a Thai restaurant opposite the Irish pub and the American bank. Globalisation has put diversity on the High Street, instead of the atlas.

But our culture is based on our heritage, whether we learn it in Alloway or Alaska; and often we know little of the diversity of that heritage.

Did you know, for example, that Rabbi Burns was Jewish?

SC

National identity is usually based on territorial/racial/linguistic/religious distinctions. There's probably a few other things to throw in there too.

My hypothesis is that people strive for some kind of identity and when the national one breaks down or weakens, the void will be filled by other group identities and the likelihood of intra national conflicts between groups will increase.

The whole point of the Church of England was to deny the foreign church influence in England.

Personally, I see no harm in having the bishops in the House of Lords; they probably understand our more enthusiastic members of other religions better than most of the other members of government, even if they do not read the same scriptures.

SC

Agreed. The representation is no problem - we need all the varied viewpoints in discussions about new laws.

The bad parts were the disenfranchisement of Catholics, Jews and women up until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. That has been solved - only criminals, lunatics and MPs are currently not allowed to participate in elections (yet one always sees the Prime Minister casting his vote - have I got it wrong?)

No person in the Upper House has been put there by popular vote. All are appointed by the Prime Minister or his predecessors ('cos they also appoint the bishops). So it's a very politically concious assembly.

I think our national identity is largely based on our history, which we seem to be in danger of forgetting. I'm proud of Britain's imperial past, and of the fact that, for a small nation, we have exercised a disproportionate influence on the world. That's not the same thing as saying I approve of everything we've done!

My grandfather, who was Italian, was proud of being absorbed into the British community (I never met him, but from all accounts he stuck out like a sore thumb!). Now we are forgetting our traditions (churchgoing was one of them), and there is less and less for immigrants to integrate with.

I am not at all apologetic about our history and traditions. I'm proud of our Christian heritage, though I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the Church of England.

I've used the word 'proud' three times... and maybe that encapsulates what I want to say! One of the seven deadly sins.... but not in this case!

Ay, Smokey, and you're rightly proud of being a Scot. That doesn't mean that we need to be at each other's throats all the time!

The whole point of the Church of England was to deny the foreign church influence in England.

Personally, I see no harm in having the bishops in the House of Lords; they probably understand our more enthusiastic members of other religions better than most of the other members of government, even if they do not read the same scriptures.

SC

Agreed. The representation is no problem - we need all the varied viewpoints in discussions about new laws.

The bad parts were the disenfranchisement of Catholics, Jews and women up until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. That has been solved - only criminals, lunatics and MPs are currently not allowed to participate in elections (yet one always sees the Prime Minister casting his vote - have I got it wrong?)

No person in the Upper House has been put there by popular vote. All are appointed by the Prime Minister or his predecessors ('cos they also appoint the bishops). So it's a very politically concious assembly.

Yes, HB, not all MPs are lunatics... or even criminals!

David Cameron is right that Britain is a Christian country by virtue of having the biggest slice of the population - 58%, but in political terms it's not a safe majority and at the current rate of decline will drop below 50% fairly soon.

If you add up the number in that 58% who actually attend church regularly it drops to about 9%. Is Britain still a Christian country? And, allowing for the fact that a large slice of that 9% is made up of people over 60, Britain's future as a "Christian" country is not promising.

http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php

And if David Cameron wants everyone to return to biblical values he should probably support Islam, as that's closer to the Abrahamic tradition than Rowan William's version of biblical Christianity, derived more from the parables and sermons of the Hellenistic New Testament than the Levitican moral code of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

To admit he's not a practising Christian and is full of theological doubts; to display that he has really only a very superficial understanding of the issues, and then to get up and lecture an audience of Churchmen seems a bit gauche to me.

"Biblical values" tends to suggest the Abrahamic code, but that's hardly what Christianity is about. The New Testament contains a new covenant which, in many things but not in all, replaces the Old Testament morality. For example, we do not believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The Ten Commandments are not superseded, but most of the Jewish law is. To that extent, if not in most, I agree with Rowan Williams.

The New Testament is in a version of Hellenistic Greek (Paul's and Luke's writing are quite pure Greek; Revelation, whoever, wrote it, is horrible!) but it is misleading to describe it as the" Hellenistic New Testament". The thoughts, and even in many cases the language patterns, are steeped in Jewish tradition.

The recent pattern of the Church of England (with notable exceptions) is "Birth, marriage, and death; otherwise don't bother us." The moral values of Christianity, however, underlie almost everything in life.

"Biblical values" tends to suggest the Abrahamic code, but that's hardly what Christianity is about. The New Testament contains a new covenant which, in many things but not in all, replaces the Old Testament morality. For example, we do not believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The Ten Commandments are not superseded, but most of the Jewish law is. To that extent, if not in most, I agree with Rowan Williams.

The New Testament is in a version of Hellenistic Greek (Paul's and Luke's writing are quite pure Greek; Revelation, whoever, wrote it, is horrible!) but it is misleading to describe it as the" Hellenistic New Testament". The thoughts, and even in many cases the language patterns, are steeped in Jewish tradition.

The recent pattern of the Church of England (with notable exceptions) is "Birth, marriage, and death; otherwise don't bother us." The moral values of Christianity, however, underlie almost everything in life.

Hatch, match and despatch is simple bureaucracy and can be done by any comptent clerk.

Leading a community in moral values seems to be the province of Rabbis and Mullahs, not CofE vicars. I think this is Caneron's point.

"Biblical values" tends to suggest the Abrahamic code, but that's hardly what Christianity is about. The New Testament contains a new covenant which, in many things but not in all, replaces the Old Testament morality. For example, we do not believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The Ten Commandments are not superseded, but most of the Jewish law is. To that extent, if not in most, I agree with Rowan Williams.

The New Testament is in a version of Hellenistic Greek (Paul's and Luke's writing are quite pure Greek; Revelation, whoever, wrote it, is horrible!) but it is misleading to describe it as the" Hellenistic New Testament". The thoughts, and even in many cases the language patterns, are steeped in Jewish tradition.

The recent pattern of the Church of England (with notable exceptions) is "Birth, marriage, and death; otherwise don't bother us." The moral values of Christianity, however, underlie almost everything in life.

Hatch, match and despatch is simple bureaucracy and can be done by any comptent clerk.

Leading a community in moral values seems to be the province of Rabbis and Mullahs, not CofE vicars. I think this is Caneron's point.

I suppose we are not as dogma-bound as other faiths, but instead we are steeped in the democratic (not quite the right word, but my vocabulary fails me...) the proletarian principles of the common law and presbyterianism, even the Anglican high church is more market-driven than the church of Rome, or the Ayatollahs. Our morals reflect our own dynamic faith, and not the dictates of theologians, acedemics or rabble-rousers.

SC

I think our national identity is largely based on our history, which we seem to be in danger of forgetting. I'm proud of Britain's imperial past, and of the fact that, for a small nation, we have exercised a disproportionate influence on the world. That's not the same thing as saying I approve of everything we've done!

My grandfather, who was Italian, was proud of being absorbed into the British community (I never met him, but from all accounts he stuck out like a sore thumb!). Now we are forgetting our traditions (churchgoing was one of them), and there is less and less for immigrants to integrate with.

I am not at all apologetic about our history and traditions. I'm proud of our Christian heritage, though I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the Church of England.

I've used the word 'proud' three times... and maybe that encapsulates what I want to say! One of the seven deadly sins.... but not in this case!

Ay, Smokey, and you're rightly proud of being a Scot. That doesn't mean that we need to be at each other's throats all the time!

how can you be proud of something in which you had no part, e.g. Britain's imperial past, Christian heritage or Britain's disproportionate influence on the world? i humbly apologise for shaking my head in disbelief.

How can you be proud of something in which you had no part, e.g. Britain's imperial past, Christian heritage or Britain's disproportionate influence on the world? i humbly apologise for shaking my head in disbelief.

I think this is largely a question of semantics, Naam. I had no part of it, but it is part of what formed me and made me what I am.

"Biblical values" tends to suggest the Abrahamic code, but that's hardly what Christianity is about. The New Testament contains a new covenant which, in many things but not in all, replaces the Old Testament morality. For example, we do not believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The Ten Commandments are not superseded, but most of the Jewish law is. To that extent, if not in most, I agree with Rowan Williams.

The New Testament is in a version of Hellenistic Greek (Paul's and Luke's writing are quite pure Greek; Revelation, whoever, wrote it, is horrible!) but it is misleading to describe it as the" Hellenistic New Testament". The thoughts, and even in many cases the language patterns, are steeped in Jewish tradition.

The recent pattern of the Church of England (with notable exceptions) is "Birth, marriage, and death; otherwise don't bother us." The moral values of Christianity, however, underlie almost everything in life.

Hatch, match and despatch is simple bureaucracy and can be done by any comptent clerk.

Leading a community in moral values seems to be the province of Rabbis and Mullahs, not CofE vicars. I think this is Caneron's point.

I agree with you, HB. Such morality as the once-Christian West has is a legacy of generations of Christianity, fading slowly as generations pass. What it needs, and what I think Cameron meant, was a constant reinforcement of that morality... and the belief which went with it.

I suppose we are not as dogma-bound as other faiths, but instead we are steeped in the democratic (not quite the right word, but my vocabulary fails me...) the proletarian principles of the common law and presbyterianism, even the Anglican high church is more market-driven than the church of Rome, or the Ayatollahs. Our morals reflect our own dynamic faith, and not the dictates of theologians, acedemics or rabble-rousers.

SC

Who are "we", SC? Sorry if I missed something.

I think our national identity is largely based on our history, which we seem to be in danger of forgetting. I'm proud of Britain's imperial past, and of the fact that, for a small nation, we have exercised a disproportionate influence on the world. That's not the same thing as saying I approve of everything we've done!

My grandfather, who was Italian, was proud of being absorbed into the British community (I never met him, but from all accounts he stuck out like a sore thumb!). Now we are forgetting our traditions (churchgoing was one of them), and there is less and less for immigrants to integrate with.

I am not at all apologetic about our history and traditions. I'm proud of our Christian heritage, though I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the Church of England.

I've used the word 'proud' three times... and maybe that encapsulates what I want to say! One of the seven deadly sins.... but not in this case!

Ay, Smokey, and you're rightly proud of being a Scot. That doesn't mean that we need to be at each other's throats all the time!

how can you be proud of something in which you had no part, e.g. Britain's imperial past, Christian heritage or Britain's disproportionate influence on the world? i humbly apologise for shaking my head in disbelief.

I'm torn between agreeing with you, which I do, and making the point (since this is a religious thread) that IMO pride is one of the very few sins which I find contemptible. It is the source of most conflicts in this world.

"Biblical values" tends to suggest the Abrahamic code, but that's hardly what Christianity is about. The New Testament contains a new covenant which, in many things but not in all, replaces the Old Testament morality. For example, we do not believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The Ten Commandments are not superseded, but most of the Jewish law is. To that extent, if not in most, I agree with Rowan Williams.

The New Testament is in a version of Hellenistic Greek (Paul's and Luke's writing are quite pure Greek; Revelation, whoever, wrote it, is horrible!) but it is misleading to describe it as the" Hellenistic New Testament". The thoughts, and even in many cases the language patterns, are steeped in Jewish tradition.

Yes, you're quite right, IB. I over-generalized. In fact, in many cases, especially in Mark and Matthew, Jewish themes are strong. Especially Matthew, who tried to identify Jesus as the new Moses. Luke and Acts, both written in Syria for a gentile audience, reflect a stronger Hellenic influence, and John draws substantially on the Greek Logos tradition.

I tend to identify the word "biblical" with the Jewish scriptures. I'm not sure where I got this from, and can't defend it, though I see the following in Wikipedia:

Biblical theology is a discipline within Christian theology which studies the Bible from the perspective of understanding the progressive history of God revealing Himself to humanity following the Fall and throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. It particularly focuses on the epochs of the Old Testament in order to understand how each part of it ultimately points forward to fulfillment in the life mission of Jesus Christ. (Wikipedia: Biblical Theology)

I think our national identity is largely based on our history, which we seem to be in danger of forgetting. I'm proud of Britain's imperial past, and of the fact that, for a small nation, we have exercised a disproportionate influence on the world. That's not the same thing as saying I approve of everything we've done!

My grandfather, who was Italian, was proud of being absorbed into the British community (I never met him, but from all accounts he stuck out like a sore thumb!). Now we are forgetting our traditions (churchgoing was one of them), and there is less and less for immigrants to integrate with.

I am not at all apologetic about our history and traditions. I'm proud of our Christian heritage, though I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the Church of England.

I've used the word 'proud' three times... and maybe that encapsulates what I want to say! One of the seven deadly sins.... but not in this case!

Ay, Smokey, and you're rightly proud of being a Scot. That doesn't mean that we need to be at each other's throats all the time!

how can you be proud of something in which you had no part, e.g. Britain's imperial past, Christian heritage or Britain's disproportionate influence on the world? i humbly apologise for shaking my head in disbelief.

I'm torn between agreeing with you, which I do, and making the point (since this is a religious thread) that IMO pride is one of the very few sins which I find contemptible. It is the source of most conflicts in this world.

I disagree, I don't think pride in itself is a flaw. To take pride in something can often mean such as "doing a job well" "keeping a building or environment in pristine condition" "taking care of something for future generations".

I think to say that pride is something that should be viewed contemptuously is to confuse it more with arrogance and impudence.

I would say that national pride and national arrogance are two very different things but in a certain sense political correctness has directed that they both be judged as the same.

I think our national identity is largely based on our history, which we seem to be in danger of forgetting. I'm proud of Britain's imperial past, and of the fact that, for a small nation, we have exercised a disproportionate influence on the world. That's not the same thing as saying I approve of everything we've done!

My grandfather, who was Italian, was proud of being absorbed into the British community (I never met him, but from all accounts he stuck out like a sore thumb!). Now we are forgetting our traditions (churchgoing was one of them), and there is less and less for immigrants to integrate with.

I am not at all apologetic about our history and traditions. I'm proud of our Christian heritage, though I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the Church of England.

I've used the word 'proud' three times... and maybe that encapsulates what I want to say! One of the seven deadly sins.... but not in this case!

Ay, Smokey, and you're rightly proud of being a Scot. That doesn't mean that we need to be at each other's throats all the time!

how can you be proud of something in which you had no part, e.g. Britain's imperial past, Christian heritage or Britain's disproportionate influence on the world? i humbly apologise for shaking my head in disbelief.

I'm torn between agreeing with you, which I do, and making the point (since this is a religious thread) that IMO pride is one of the very few sins which I find contemptible. It is the source of most conflicts in this world.

I disagree, I don't think pride in itself is a flaw. To take pride in something can often mean such as "doing a job well" "keeping a building or environment in pristine condition" "taking care of something for future generations".

I think to say that pride is something that should be viewed contemptuously is to confuse it more with arrogance and impudence.

I would say that national pride and national arrogance are two very different things but in a certain sense political correctness has directed that they both be judged as the same.

I DO consider pride to be more along the lines of arrogance and inpudence. I'm perfectly willing to take satisfaction in a job well done.

I think one of the problems seems to be, pride has both positive and negative connotations.

For me pride suggests more the positive ie achievement, satisfaction, ambition, improvement, dignity.

I don't generally think about it in the negative, which is more arrogance,insecurity.

I suppose we are not as dogma-bound as other faiths, but instead we are steeped in the democratic (not quite the right word, but my vocabulary fails me...) the proletarian principles of the common law and presbyterianism, even the Anglican high church is more market-driven than the church of Rome, or the Ayatollahs. Our morals reflect our own dynamic faith, and not the dictates of theologians, acedemics or rabble-rousers.

SC

Who are "we", SC? Sorry if I missed something.

British protestants, and particularly the Church of Scotland. I've not had much to do with the likes of Smokie and the Wee Frees (sounds like a Country and Western band...) though I believe my father's grandfather was a minister in such a church. Obviously, I was generalising from my own example, so I suppose "I, and others like me" was what I meant by 'we'

We take pride in our heritage because it shapes our values, and therefore we believe that heritage to be good (more or less), and there is some selective education / selective learning to reinforce that.

SC

How can you be proud of something in which you had no part, e.g. Britain's imperial past, Christian heritage or Britain's disproportionate influence on the world? i humbly apologise for shaking my head in disbelief.

I think this is largely a question of semantics, Naam. I had no part of it, but it is part of what formed me and made me what I am.

i am well known for my humbleness and finely honed diplomatic tactics / behaviour. therefore i refrain to comment

I suppose we are not as dogma-bound as other faiths, but instead we are steeped in the democratic (not quite the right word, but my vocabulary fails me...) the proletarian principles of the common law and presbyterianism, even the Anglican high church is more market-driven than the church of Rome, or the Ayatollahs. Our morals reflect our own dynamic faith, and not the dictates of theologians, acedemics or rabble-rousers.

SC

Who are "we", SC? Sorry if I missed something.

British protestants, and particularly the Church of Scotland. I've not had much to do with the likes of Smokie and the Wee Frees (sounds like a Country and Western band...) though I believe my father's grandfather was a minister in such a church. Obviously, I was generalising from my own example, so I suppose "I, and others like me" was what I meant by 'we'

We take pride in our heritage because it shapes our values, and therefore we believe that heritage to be good (more or less), and there is some selective education / selective learning to reinforce that.

SC

I would prefer to take pride in our belief in tolerance yet I can't help but feeling that's simply a lie. Especially when sitting on the 0940 from Perth to Glasgow on a Saturday morning.

Or when I feel like buying a pack of beers to enjoy on a Sunday morning with the newspaper.

Mind you this freedom was won by the people...a grassroots revolution...so perhaps I shouldn't grumble quite so much.

We take pride in our heritage because it shapes our values...

hmmm...

We take pride in our heritage because it shapes our values...

hmmm...

i forgot to add that this was exactly the position of my late and (especially by me) dearly beloved british mother mother-in-law, whereas my non-british father-in-law was extremely proud of his national heritage but acted in daily life more british than any Britisher i ever met.

addendum: ecksept for korreckting sins more zan sirty-too years my krammar and pronunciation my semi-britisch vife doez not display any unushual british behaviour und has even adapted zome down-to-earz kontinental yewropean walues.

...I would prefer to take pride in our belief in tolerance yet I can't help but feeling that's simply a lie. Especially when sitting on the 0940 from Perth to Glasgow on a Saturday morning.

Or when I feel like buying a pack of beers to enjoy on a Sunday morning with the newspaper.

Mind you this freedom was won by the people...a grassroots revolution...so perhaps I shouldn't grumble quite so much.

I was told this by a Polish chap I worked with in England.

I think he was meaning tolerance of outsiders, rather than the futile internecine bigotry that divides Scotland and Ireland, but, in Scotland at least, I think that is just an excuse for misbehaviour rather than any real theologically-based or culturally-based difference.

Apparently, Catholics look more and more like us all the time...

In my experience, the only way to distinguish them was the different school uniform. and even that only worked up to a certain age.

SC

Apparently, Catholics look more and more like us all the time...

In my experience, the only way to distinguish them was the different school uniform. and even that only worked up to a certain age.

SC

Most of us don't have horns these days. Cloven hooves would be difficult to hide in Thailand, but in UK it would be easy. Perhaps that's why there aren't many Catholics in Thailand.

But when it's Celtic vs. Rangers, you can tell the Catholics easily.