Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: naturalman1975
constitutionally, ultimate power over legislation rests with Parliament not the Queen. Except on a very small number of constitutional matters.

Surely, as Defender of the Faith, she should have fought this vigorously; unless she truly does believe the State is, and should remain more influential in the lives of the nation than the natural law of the Supreme Being. It is one thing for America to grapple with the church/state question; it is another for a nation with an established Christian church to throw it all in the Thames.

To all those la-di-dah dismissers of the negative consequences of this decision, note that it has taken 500 years since the English church was formed to suit a lecherous King Henry XIII until this decision, which puts not only the final nail into freedom in Christ; it also drives a stake through the heart of the corpse. In this "brave" new future, children will be nothing more than prey; and women will return even farther into chattel status than they were before they started pressing for "liberation" from their traditional roles. The only difference being that before, they were chattel who were responsible for modesty and chastity. Now, they will be chattel who are expected to dress and act like whores and stand aside without protest the minute their baby daddy wants a different concubine or a boyfriend. Sad, sad day for the ghosts of Western Civ.

71 posted on 07/17/2013 2:52:53 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Remember... the first revolutionary was Satan."--Russian Orthodox Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: Albion Wilde

It’s sad of course but again the scripture says nothing about a special power of kings and queens of England. It’s a textbook example of what not to do in Christendom.


73 posted on 07/17/2013 3:01:57 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: Albion Wilde
Surely, as Defender of the Faith, she should have fought this vigorously

I don't presume to tell my Queen what she should and should not do, but if she did feel that way, she should - and would have - done so according to the principle of British Constitutional Monarchy. Which is that - in private - she has the right to warn the Prime Minister that she believes this is wrong.

She does not and can not speak out against Her Majesty's Government in public. She can and does do so in private. And because it's in private, unless she or the Prime Minister leaks it - and the Queen never has, and Prime Ministers virtually never have - nobody would know.

She has the right to be informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn - in private. That is the way it works.

74 posted on 07/17/2013 3:04:49 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson