Naughty Brits, naughty, naughty Brits.Anybody been to the UK lately?
Yikes!
Gay goings on are the least of the debauchery and the hatred for all things Christian.
God bless, Annem
Please explain.I agree that Britain is a mess. The secular norm is imposed on people and it’s practically illegal to object. Not quite, but going that way.
People elected them because they agreed with their policies, which were largely formed in their consciences. Therefore, it could be said that politicians are elected because of their consciences. They are elected for their beliefs and beliefs are formed and influenced by conscience.^They’re not there to vote their conscience. They’re there to represent those who elected them. That isn’t achieved in a conscience vote.
As far as I’ve read, the Catholic charities are carrying on their ‘caring for children’ activities without the adoption side being under the Church Trusts.Catholic charities are being forced to arrange adoptions to same-sex couples, for one.
Which people in government? The Catholic schools’ running costs and a lot of the capital costs are paid for by the taxpayer, you can hardly expect there to be no public interest.Some people in government have talked about wanting to investigate Catholic schools, to see what sorts of undesirable values may be taught in them.
The only ‘abortion issue’ in the UK is about the reduction of the number of weeks not about its being legal and ‘whipping’ is normal practice in the UK Parliament because the Executive is drawn from the majority party in the Legislature (there was no official ‘whip’ in May, the votes for a reduction were just not there).And, how about that lovely thing where the Labour gov tried to prevent MP’s from voting their consciences on abortion issues? Those are just the ones that come to mind, at the moment.
The ‘conscience’ thing is true to an extent but not entirely - people don’t vote for an individual MP so much as vote for Party Leaders, Parties and, less consciously, for Party manifestos.People elected them because they agreed with their policies, which were largely formed in their consciences. Therefore, it could be said that politicians are elected because of their consciences. They are elected for their beliefs and beliefs are formed and influenced by conscience.
With this in mind, I believe it’s important that MP’s vote according to their conscience because we elected them for their beliefs. In so doing, they would be fulfilling the reasons why they were elected in the first place.
Absolutely incorrect. This is an utterly false and morally bankrupt attitude. all elected officials are to vote and act upon their conscience.^They’re not there to vote their conscience. They’re there to represent those who elected them. That isn’t achieved in a conscience vote.
The public doesn’t vote for people. They vote for whoever represents the party they support. The party line got them their job and politicians need to stick with it.Absolutely incorrect. This is an utterly false and morally bankrupt attitude. all elected officials are to vote and act upon their conscience.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Using your logic, that would require a politician to act immorally or pass immoral laws just because of some perception that it is what the “people want”. You cannot justify this. You cannot require someone to do something immoral.The public doesn’t vote for people. They vote for whoever represents the party they support. The party line got them their job and politicians need to stick with it.
There are some exceptions, but they are exceptions not the norm.
Quite how government drawn from majorities in the legislature could work in any other way is pretty hard to imagine.The public doesn’t vote for people. They vote for whoever represents the party they support. The party line got them their job and politicians need to stick with it.
There are some exceptions, but they are exceptions not the norm.
So in a government drawn from majorities you are voting for parties, not individuals? I’m ok with that, but I don’t think that’s quite the way it’s constructed here. Maybe you’re not familiar.Quite how government drawn from majorities in the legislature could work in any other way is pretty hard to imagine.
I’m quite familiar with the US system from having lived in the US (the American system isn’t quite so ‘innocent’ as you suggest though, is it?), my replies have been pointing out how a ‘parliamentary’ system functions to Americans.So in a government drawn from majorities you are voting for parties, not individuals? I’m ok with that, but I don’t think that’s quite the way it’s constructed here. Maybe you’re not familiar.
But here, the idea is that the voter elects an individual. The voter discerns the character of the individual to try to learn what his conscience will dictate, and if it corresponds to the voter’s own positions, he votes him in. The elected official votes his conscience. No party goes down in an election; individuals go down. We kind of prefer it to the Parliamentary system.
Naughty Brits, naughty, naughty Brits.
I grew up an Anglophile. So it is very distressing to me to see the culture now so secular and hostile to God.Please do tell more about the debauchery (beyond gayness, that’s some claim on CAF!) and hatred for all things Christian.
I don’t know where the ‘hostile to God’ thing comes in to it when talking about the UK, ‘largely indifferent to God’ would be the kind of term I’d use.Kaninchen
I grew up an Anglophile. So it is very distressing to me to see the culture now so secular and hostile to God.
That’s all a bit of a disappointment, ‘debauchery’ does rather conjure up something rather more, shall we say, ‘steamy’!What is the illegitimacy rate right now? Isn’t it something like 40%? And the most recent statistics on marriage show fewer and fewer are getting married.
Well, that’s not likely to happen.However, I know that these things are true, on a slightly lesser scale. of the US. What is the solution? Only a return to God.
What is the illegitimacy rate right now? Isn’t it something like 40%? And the most recent statistics on marriage show fewer and fewer are getting married.
‘Steamy’ is always a disappointment. Usually so tabloid tacky and then so boring.Kaninchen That’s all a bit of a disappointment, ‘debauchery’ does rather conjure up something rather more, shall we say, ‘steamy’!
However, I know that these things are true, on a slightly lesser scale. of the US. What is the solution? Only a return to God.
Oh Kaninchen, what a sad thing to say. And what if it’s true? Ever read the much discussed words of Mark Steyn: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries…Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”Kaninchen Well, that’s not likely to happen.
I think that would depend on one’s definition of ‘harmed’, wouldn’t it? I don’t think it means that they are ‘corrupted’ by it.‘Steamy’ is always a disappointment. Usually so tabloid tacky and then so boring.
And why doesn’t it strike you as debauched that so many millions of children are being harmed by being raised in single parent homes?
Oh, I’m familiar with Mark Steyn alright, nobody could spend much time on CAF without becoming so. Margaret Thatcher used to say that certain things were not just nonsense but “nonsense on stilts” and, as far as I’m concerned, that sums up Mark Steyn.Oh Kaninchen, what a sad thing to say. And what if it’s true? Ever read the much discussed words of Mark Steyn: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries…Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”