G
GreenJeans
Guest
As any school child can tell you, read the thread and catch up on the discussion.
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Have you any kind of reference at all for this happening?
Sounds a nice story but how on earth would a foreign statesman get to address the UK House of Commons? And the whole House of Commons got to its feet etc . . . - It’d be the only time in its history (which is considerably older than the United States).
E
estesbob
Guest
The only thing that kept Britain from recognizing the Confedearcy was Slavery.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Honored foreign visitors are often asked to address the House of Commons. And the House of Commons is traditionally rather rowdy and on many occasions the members – or a large section of them – have stood and shouted down people.
It was, after all in the House of Commons where the celebrated exchange occurred, “I am convinced you will either be hanged or die of the pox.” And that drew the retort, “That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistriss.”
K
Kaninchen
Guest
No they’re not, that’s the point.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ben Gurion used to address the Keneset (the Israli Parliament) in his shirtsleeves. When asked about it, he said, “Winston Churchill told me I could.”
He later explained he showed up to address Parliament without a tie, and Churchill told him, “Ben Gurion, you can do that in Israel, but not in England.”
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Which doesn’t say that Ben Gurion addressed the UK House of Commons, (which he didn’t).Ben Gurion used to address the Keneset (the Israli Parliament) in his shirtsleeves. When asked about it, he said, “Winston Churchill told me I could.”
He later explained he showed up to address Parliament without a tie, and Churchill told him, “Ben Gurion, you can do that in Israel, but not in England.”
The only non-Member who can address the House of Commons is the Monarch during what is known as the Queen’s/King’s Speech where she/he announces the Government’s program for the session.
C
cor
Guest
For now, I agree with you, more or less. But if he becomes President, as a Head of State things change under the Code of Canon Law. See below…
It’s an interesting comment since 1) a Catholic should at least listen to the pope, whether a politician or not 2) if he becomes president in certain matters he falls directly under the sole jurisdiction of the pope:
Can. 1401 The Church has its own and exclusive right to judge:
1° cases which refer to matters which are spiritual or linked with the spiritual;
2° the violation of ecclesiastical laws and whatever contains an element of sin, to determine guilt and impose ecclesiastical penalties.
Can. 1405 §1 In the cases mentioned in can. 1401, the Roman Pontiff alone has the right to judge:
1° Heads of State;
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P58.HTM#13
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
He said he did.
You may be right, and these may be urban legends – I can’t find anything to confirm either story.
C
cor
Guest
The war was not begun to end slavery. And in any event that war was the bloodiest war of our history – more Americans died than in all other wars combined. President Lincoln should have sought peace, not war, IMO.
Are you suggesting it would be justified to have such a blood bath to end abortion?
C
cor
Guest
What about the nurses? Should we throw them in jail too? What about secretaries?
B
bones_IV
Guest
And we will also not support a law that selectively decides which babies live and which ones won’t.
What if I told you the truth about President Bush.
all.org/article.php?id=10746
“In summary, through the use of his carefully weighed rhetoric, the president consistently worked to undermine the fundamental, irrefutable scientific fact at the core of this issue: that human life begins at conception / fertilization and that there is never an acceptable reason for intentionally taking an innocent human life. While even supposedly presenting the pro-life perspective in portions of his presentation, he used terms such as “potential life,” “cluster of cells,” “seeds,” “byproduct,” and strategically omitted “human” in key places serving to obfuscate these scientific and ethical realities. In addition, funding in research on cell lines already established through the destruction of human embryos imputes an unethical complicity on our government and our country. For the first time in the history of the United States, the federal government will support research which may benefit others relying upon the destruction of innocent, defenseless human persons who were killed. This allows our nation’s research to continue to cultivate a disrespect for human life.
Furthermore, what will happen if initial research proves to be promising? Virtually all scientists agree that these 60 cell lines will not be sufficient for the research needed. What will President Bush do when researchers may be on the verge of a breakthrough and approach him, asking for more cell lines to complete the task? According to this precedent, he will have to provide more funding. He has opened this door and the slippery slope is indeed intact and functional. We have every reason to believe that he would break his commitment again.
Finally, this sad event once again illustrates to the pro-life community that the sole protector of innocent human life is objective truth. When politicians attempt to win our support while compromising objective moral principles, it just sets a precedent for future defeat and the continued destruction of innocent human life. Only when we first require adherence to objective truth from politicians will we be able to protect innocent human life from the moment of conception / fertilization.
We have put this analysis together to help all see clearly how the president’s decision disqualifies him from describing himself as pro-life. Let us pray for him.”
Judie Brown
President
American Life League, Inc.I’m sorry to bust your bubble estesbob, but the truth is what it is.
T
Tom317
Guest
Oh brother. Thanks to Bush we are now one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade and we now have a Supreme Court deicison that upholds the ban on PBAs.
I never thought Bush was 100% prolife, nor should anyone else. Yet, he has advanced the cause tremendously. Judie Brown expects 100%, and anything less is met with severe condemnation. Well, Bush is NOT Catholic, so I will not condemn him for not being 100% in comformity with Church teachings. Interestingly, he appointed Catholics to the bench and thanks to that we saw a 5-4 vote with the 5 votes being Catholic!
I believe Bush’s real legacy will not be the war, it will be his advancement of the cause for life.
B
bones_IV
Guest
So are you saying that God’s commandments are not for everyone? You’re not making any sense.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I think there are two simple steps we can take:
- Make a 4D sonogram a matter of “informed consent.” There are studies that indicate that a woman who wants an abortion and sees a 4D sonogram of her baby is much less likely to go through with it. Under this legislation, a woman who was not shown a 4D could sue on the grounds that her consent was not informed.
- Allow underage women who are forced to have abortions to sue upon reaching majority.
T
Tom317
Guest
No, of course not. I am saying that Bush has done a good job with the issue of life, far from perfect, but the best we have seen since Roe v. Wade. Let’s not pound on someone who has helped.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Amen. Those who demand perfection drive off good.
- Status