• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Seeks a Proper Invitation for the Queen

Laila said:
I dislike Ann Widdecombe, for her politics naturally but in the years i've observed her she has at least been consistent.

If we start up the road of Politicans spouting their religious beliefs every time they try and enter office we will end up like US. I don't want our politics to emulate them. Can you imagine simple things like Stem cells suddenly being such a ridiculous controversial battle?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm not an expert on it but if it is proper to have such a moral debate then I would like to see it.

What you advocate is a further drift to secularism, I do not agree with this and do not want to see it. I don't want the US system perhaps but I want one of a reinvigorated spirituality, particularly Anglican Christianity. I prefer it when politicians are ready to speak out about their religious beliefs and put morals above politics. Don't think that marginalising religion is neutral, religion relies on community and shared belief so by doing so you automatically weaken it.
 
Wessexman said:
What about it? That does not distract from the importance or the glory of said office. In fact as your cliched response makes clear it was an important seat. It is also the seat of Blair just as Obama's is the seat of Carter, W.H.Bush and FDR. Cliches are so uninteresting, btw mate.
Click to expand...

How many millions did Carter, W.H. Bush and FDR sell to the gas chambers in return for the safety of their countries?
 
Wessexman said:
Yes. What you advocate is a further drift to secularism, I do not agree with this and do not want to see it. I don't want the US system perhaps but I want one of a reinvigorated spirituality, particularly Anglican Christianity. I prefer it when politicians are ready to speak out about their religious beliefs and put morals above politics. Don't think that marginalising religion is neutral, religion relies on community and shared belief so by doing so you automatically weaken it.
Click to expand...

There is little balance in the US model and what stops it from becoming it?
The balance that should occur is happening now.
It hardly matters if politicans are religious if the citizens are not but Christianity does and always will hold such positions of influence. House of Lords is packed full of Bishops, tax money to keep going etc.

If a politicans puts his morals above the politics and wishes of voters. He should get out of office and join a religious group. That would be more suited.
Community has been destroyed for a very long time, religion isn't going to fix that.
 
Laila said:
There is little balance in the US model and what stops it from becoming it?
Click to expand...
I think there is plenty of balance. Note I consider it better in this regard than the current British set up.



The balance that should occur is happening now.
Click to expand...
I disagree entirely. The elites, liberal media and at least two of the main parties are pushing us endlessly towards further secularisation.
It hardly matters if politicans are religious if the citizens are not but Christianity does and always will hold such positions of influence. House of Lords is packed full of Bishops, tax money to keep going etc.
Click to expand...
The fact that the elites and media and such push more and more secularism and less and less Christianity effects the level of Christian belief in this country. I'd say it is one of the major reasons for its unfortunate decline.

If a politicans puts his morals above the politics and wishes of voters. He should get out of office and join a religious group. That would be more suited.
Click to expand...
Unless of course his voters want things like section 28 of course. So basically pro-left-liberal popularism is good, anti- is bad. :2razz:

Everyone's worldviews is based on their ethics, metaphysical, spiritual and ethical belief systems. Your representative owes you his judgment and as well as acting for the electors he must use his moral judgment and also work for Britain. To do this he should aim to uphold the church and religion of the state and he should adhere to his morals in many cases.


Community has been destroyed for a very long time, religion isn't going to fix that.
Click to expand...
They go hand in hand.
 
Wessexman said:
... Look at Anne Widdecombe part of the traditionalist Tory wing and very much a staunch Catholic.

....
Click to expand...

Ann Widdecombe was born/christened an Anglican and only left the Church of England in the 1990's.
 
Wessexman said:
I think there is plenty of balance. Note I consider it better in this regard than the current British set up.

I disagree entirely. The elites, liberal media and at least two of the main parties are pushing us endlessly towards further secularisation.
The fact that the elites and media and such push more and more secularism and less and less Christianity effects the level of Christian belief in this country. I'd say it is one of the major reasons for its unfortunate decline.
Click to expand...

Well ofc you would. It means more religion.
I'd rather we not get into a situation where we spend months trying to decide whether a PM is a Christian or a secret Muslim tyvm.

Oh yes, blame the media for the fact that people do not go Church.
I suppose it's us liberals fault people are turning away from Christianity? Did we block their entry to the church perhaps?

Face it, people are leaving religion because it has little to offer them.
It is religion that needs to evolve to make it relevant to 21st century brits. Not the Brits themselves.

Your representative owes you his judgment and as well as acting for the electors he must use his moral judgment and also work for Britain. To do this he should aim to uphold the church and religion of the state and he should adhere to his morals in many cases.

They go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Why does morality come into it? And you have morals without the baggage of religion you know. Run the country and run it well, it is us that should influence our MPs. Not a religion.
 
Laila said:
:doh

Have you never picked up a history book and read the Normandy affair?

As shocking as it may be for you to understand, US troops weren't the only ones there. There was more than one country present. 10 countries taking part to be exact.
Click to expand...

Actually Yes I have, I've done two papers on Operation Overlord one of what if Army Group B was released by Hitler and one if Operation Anvil had happen at the same time like Ike want to.

As for the number of Counrties your wrong their were more then 10 Allied Countries involved with the invasion. If you like I can name them and even break them down by how many and what type of units for you.
 
Doesn't the Whitehouse have more important things to worry about?

I really could not care less about her attending and I certainly do not take it as a slight against Britain.

In fact if the French did it on purpose I appreciate it, one less fancy trip that her subjects have to pay for!
 
Slainte said:
I really could not care less about her attending and I certainly do not take it as a slight against Britain.

In fact if the French did it on purpose I appreciate it, one less fancy trip that her subjects have to pay for!
Click to expand...

I'd rather pay for her than ANY Politican.

I care about her attendence and you are most likely in the minority.
This will be the last time many of the veterans travel to Normandy and you do not want our head of state to be there? :roll:
 
Laila said:
I'd rather pay for her than ANY Politican.
Click to expand...

Why?

At least politicians are there because someone decided they could do a better job than anyone else, if they do a bad job they will, in theory, lose it.

Frankly, the monarchy is just a relic of a less enlightened period of our history.

This will be the last time many of the veterans travel to Normandy and you do not want our head of state to be there?
Click to expand...

If our head of state was someone who held that position on merit I would want them to be the first name on the list. As it is, I find it hard to get upset over the old women being treated like an average person, to me that is all she is.
 
Redress said:
I am always amazed at the strength of the reaction that British people have surrounding their queen. We have nothing at all like it here, and it really is amazing.
Click to expand...

Just wait... our king... er, I mean... god, is taking form just as we write this!

We have Obama... the One!
 
Well now, I don't have any axe to grind about her Majety and as head of State she really should have been invited to Normandy - if only for the sake of the Veterans.

But it is always at times like these - that I remember the story of a group of plane passangers waiting in the departure lounge, about to board the plane.

An announcement is made over the airport speakers - that the piolet of the plane has just had a heart attack and died - but don't worry his son will be taking his place on the flight.


Would you board that plane?
 
Slainte said:
Why?

At least politicians are there because someone decided they could do a better job than anyone else, if they do a bad job they will, in theory, lose it.
Click to expand...

At this stage, I'd rather abolish Parliament and have the Queen run this country seeing she'd do a damn better job and her loyalty and the fact she'd only work for UK's interest would never be in question

As i said, you are probably in the minority

If our head of state was someone who held that position on merit I would want them to be the first name on the list.
Click to expand...

:lamo

The Queen is the ONLY person with worth and merit in this country that could represent UK.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
:doh

Have you never picked up a history book and read the Normandy affair?

As shocking as it may be for you to understand, US troops weren't the only ones there. There was more than one country present. 10 countries taking part to be exact.
Click to expand...

Have you never figured out that Britain wasn't running the war, the United States was?
 
Laila said:
I dislike Ann Widdecombe, for her politics naturally but in the years i've observed her she has at least been consistent.
Religion shouldn't influence a MP on his position, his/her constituents and voters should hold that influence.

If we start up the road of Politicans spouting their religious beliefs every time they try and enter office we will end up like US. I don't want our politics to emulate them. Can you imagine simple things like Stem cells suddenly being such a ridiculous controversial battle?
Click to expand...

You don't mean "stem cells", you mean "embryonic stem cells". And the debate is whether living humans should be cannibalized to supply parts and repairs for other humans. England isn't having that debate. How wonderful for you. You've already decided that babies are a commercial commodity.

And since I'm an atheist I arguing from a rational perspective.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You don't mean "stem cells", you mean "embryonic stem cells". And the debate is whether living humans should be cannibalized to supply parts and repairs for other humans. England isn't having that debate. How wonderful for you. You've already decided that babies are a commercial commodity.

And since I'm an atheist I arguing from a rational perspective.
Click to expand...

I just bet you are and i mean stem cells generally.

If i don't care for feotuses, why would i care about some stem cells?
It is not a baby, spare me the emotional words. It would work if i had a heart to care

As long as it goes to finding cures, go ahead. I'd even offer mine if i could.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Have you never figured out that Britain wasn't running the war, the United States was?
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, i didn't realize that it was just America involved in Normandy. God, they must have missed that out in history lessons :doh
 
Laila said:
I just bet you are and i mean stem cells generally.

If i don't care for feotuses, why would i care about some stem cells?
It is not a baby, spare me the emotional words. It would work if i had a heart to care

As long as it goes to finding cures, go ahead. I'd even offer mine if i could.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares if you care or not.

The issue is cannibalism.
 
Laila said:
Ohhhh, i didn't realize that it was just America involved in Normandy. God, they must have missed that out in history lessons :doh
Click to expand...

I'm seeing that they didn't teach you reading comprehension.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Have you never figured out that Britain wasn't running the war, the United States was?
Click to expand...

Hey Scarecrow,

As I said in another post would you like me to break down the Countries that were part of Operation Overlord and Neptune.

Also I suggest you might want to read up on the history of WWII but if you don't have time I can give you some history lesson starting with Lend-Lease and Battle of Britian and then we can gone on to Battal for the South Alantic and then on to North Africa and the Med stuff.

Just let me know which parts you need me to school you in.
 
Laila said:
We know you weren't questioning, we were just trying to explain why we have such a strong reaction with the Queen.

She made a vow when she was coronated at her young age.
"I declare before you all that my whole life whither in be long or short shall be devoted to your service and to the service to the service of our great Imperial family. God help me to make good my vow. God bless all of you who are willing to share it"

And she has done that for decades now.
Click to expand...

God save the Queen.

Tell me, over here on this side of the pond, exactly what service the Queen does for her people? I know she's symbolic and a figurehead of a great people and loyal ally, but other than that, don't the people usually serve her for the most part? What does she "produce" that's actually tangable?

I mean, our main dude just got slammed for going out on the town with his wife. Some folks over here, in these economic times, considered that to be decadent. Considering all the pomp and circumstance and high maintenance of maintaining a monarchy, in these economic times, does not Great Britian take some issue with that?

Also, what is a "proper" invitation for the Queen? Is it any different from any other invitation that we, or any other nation, might send to any figurehead or head of state?

I know the British put the royals above all others. And that's cool. That's their thing.

But to me, it's just a dog and pony show. And although I respect the monarchy simply because I respect the will of the British people, I am not one who thinks the Queen's sh** doesn't stink.

We heathen Americans. :rofl We just don't "get it," I suppose. :roll:

Much adoo over nothing. Decadence and arrogance is not a virtue where I come from.

Still, God save the Queen. :2wave:
 
Laila said:
At this stage, I'd rather abolish Parliament and have the Queen run this country seeing she'd do a damn better job and her loyalty and the fact she'd only work for UK's interest would never be in question
Click to expand...

Although I realize you are being facetious I still find this sentiment horrific. When the Monarchy did run the country they certainly did not act in the interests of ordinary British people. Or do you think Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and Windsor Castle were built to bring in tourists hundreds of years later :rolleyes:


The Queen is the ONLY person with worth and merit in this country that could represent UK.
Click to expand...

So why doesn't she put her position on the line in an election to prove it? :lol:
 
Did anybody see that PBS show recently about the everyday work of Queen Elizabeth and her family.

I'd rather shovel ditches all day than go through what she has to go through. Every minute of every day is accounted for and planned. She has to visit each district every three years. She has to honor everybody who did something good for the community. She has to host dozens of receptions every year. She has to attend every opening of new buildings and stadiums. She has to meet with diplomats and on and on. Every word out of her mouth has to be exactly the right thing to say.

Oh she works alright!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom