Should the Britain become secular at the loss of history and tradition?

I take your point, I think I'd put mine in these terms. There is no nation on earth that is as good at incorporating social advances whilst respecting tradition as the United Kingdom.

I've lived (for most of my life until my early 20s) in Australia, in the US and in the UK (for the last three years). I've travelled fairly widely. I have encountered no country that is able to hold onto its tradition whilst moving forward as a progressive, modern country in the way GB has.

I mean, it still has a House of Lords, for goodness sake. It has a monarch, it has a judicial official called the Master of the Rolls. It still has dukes and earls. What next, a Grand Wizard? At the same time, this country is exceptionally forward looking when it comes to progressive issues like health and social care, its attitude to sexuality, its tolerance and acceptance of minorities, its ability to take on new technologies and fashions.

I think this country truly is remarkable in that sense. And long may it continue, there is no need to sacrifice one for the other. This country's great talent is incorporating both tradition and modernity

Tradition doesn't help anything, it is pointless. Culture is what matters, do these traditions reinforce the culture.

No we no longer have the independent house of lords, it is controlled by the Commons now.

I for one would love for there to be a Grand Wizard of England and Wales

Good for you.

I am saying we have had seperation of Church and government since the Glorious Revolution with the Monarch acting for the Church as head of the Church and defender of the Protestant faith. So the Church has no way of sustaining its role as the living protector of the Protestant English language bible as the moral basis for law. This means the Monarch would block all legislation on Abortion and Marriage which the Church doesn't support.

However the Monarch doesn't do anything and hasn't done anything within her institutional role it means the Church has no influence to protect itself.

The legislation of Parliament was always subject to the Monarchy and Church

Church has lawful influence over some issues mainly abortion and marriage.

Tradition doesn't help anything, it is pointless. Culture is what matters, do these traditions reinforce the culture.

No we no longer have the independent house of lords, it is controlled by the Commons now. The Monarch which refuses to use her power making the Monarch pointless. Yes families get to keep their titles, even their property.

Forward looking? What on earth does this mean. You mean government control of health and social care. You mean we allow people to be Gay and support them for being so, with threat of inprisonment and fines if we don't. You mean there are people who aren't culturally British and we tolerate and accept them, well that all sounds good. You mean new American technology and fashion.

So in closing the government controls what healthcare people get, people are forced to tolerate Gay people rather than accepting them, people of different cultures aren't forced to change to the mono-culture, rather they just have to accept laws they have no culture basis for supporting. Oh and we no longer create new world leading technology or fashions as we did.

Well this paints a picture of a very weak, culturally divided and opressive country. This is what secular progessive liberalism causes.

Nonsense. The Church has no life that is separate to that of the state, it is a part of the state and subject to parliamentary sovereignty like the rest of the country. Parliament has always taken a deep interest in the affairs of the Church, up to and including even the order and particular words of the liturgy.

It seems you are rather unaware of just how activist parliament was in regulating the church in the 19th century. The monarch has absolutely no obligation (or even a constitutional right, really) to block legislation on abortion and marriage. It sounds like you've never even heard of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857

The church thinks what parliament tells it to think. That's how an established church works. End of story.



Because the monarch realises that would be completely inappropriate and cause a constitutional crisis.



My dear boy, you seem completely confused. How is the legislation of parliament subject to the church? Please point to a single, respected constitutional text that says the monarch has some obligation to act on behalf of the church (which, as I said above, has no independent life... it thinks what parliament tells it to think)

The church has a say in the making of law (the lords spiritual in the upper house) but once parliament's mind is made up, that is final



What "lawful influence"? Don't dodge the question, answer it

if by "controls what healthcare people get" you mean "makes sure everybody actually gets healthcare", and "people are forced to tolerate gay people" you mean "doesn't let me discriminate against people based on my irrational prejudices against their sexuality", then yeah that's about right.

What a **** hole, I would much rather live somewhere that lets its poor die of treatable ailments and lets me be be as much of a dick to gays as I like!

No I mean it makes sure it controls peoples healthcare. Not everybody gets healthcare or even has access to it with procurement limits for drugs. So I think I have soundly defeated your argument. Oh and would you say the dentist is healthcare?

No I mean the government forces people to tolerate Gay people with fines and threats of inprisonment. I discriminate against Gay and other people discriminate against me as a disabled person. I don't want the government deciding what people can and can't do on their own property or force me to associate with people I don't want to allow on my property for whatever reason.

People do die if treatable problems, many of them wouldn't if they had to pay for it. Poor wouldn't die if people gave money to charities or hospitals rather than the government. Yeah where I would be a dick to Gay people and Gay people could be a dick to me, where we just accept it and move on. Me not trying to change them and them not trying to change me using government force.

You do realise you can still get private healthcare in the UK right? If you think the NHS is limiting you then feel free to pay and get better elsewhere. It isn't perfect but the fact remains that the current system means the least fortunate do not have to choose between their health and their rent if they get sick. If you see no problem with denying people who can't afford it basic healthcare, then congratulations on being an ********. I am sure as an allegedly disabled person you have never benefited from the NHS.

And what exactly are the government forcing you to do with gays?

No you can't get private healthcare outside the major cities, which also have the best NHS hospitals because of demographic payments. Else where is 80 miles away from where I live and I would still have to pay NI and income tax for the NHS aswell as my own healthcare costs. You mean the poor, yet the poor still do have to choose between feeding their children and rent in many places, which they get taxed on again. No their healthcare should be paid for before they get sick using different healthcare plans. Yes I see a problem with it which is why I would give grants to hospitals in my local area and charities, that is if I didn't have to pay taxes. I want to help people as best I can giving them choice will do that medium-long term.

No I am disabled because the NHS didn't take care of me when I was born. They moved me around from the poor hospital in my local area to the larger hosital 80 miles away when I nearly died, then they said they had no beds in that hospital and moved me back, 3 days later I nearly died again causing brain damage and they sent me back to the large hosital. My parents had no say in the matter, my healthcare was decided by people who didn't know me or my family or care about me because they were getting not benefit from me staying healthy. It was all just about numbers, not means.

They are talking people to court for not accepting gay people, like that B&B.

They are talking people to court for not accepting gay people, like that B&B.

right, because health insurance plans work so well for poor people in countries like america right? And you might give to charity, but in the end not enough people feel that way for it to make a remotely adequate substitute. If you make healthcare something you have to buy then the poor will suffer for it, there is no way you can deny it.

And while I am sorry for what happened to you, that is was a cockup and nothing more. Mistakes happen no matter how your healthcare is funded. I do not see how that would have been any different if your treatment was being funded by your parents health insurance instead.

So if I owned a B&B and refused to let you stay because I don't like disabled people, you would be ok with that?

No, the Government is doing nothing in that regard. The owners of the B&B were taken to court by the people who they refused service to. The judges (at various levels) decided that the action the landlords took was unlawful, but only after the wronged couple took them to court.

Healthcare in the US is so costly because the government regulates it and cause monopolies with government programs like medicare and medicade, also now Obama care which isn't bring prices down just making the middle class and younger people pay for the increase.

We should't have any government involvement at all. We people using not only healthcare insurance but other means aswell to improve their healthcare. Like family care, collective care, independent hosital insurance to name a few.

Yeah the insurance companies do their job to try and get the best balance between healthcare and cost, they can't just allow people to die because they lose money. They then send people to non-profit hospitals, however these are few and far between because people won't or are unable because of taxation to give more money to them. I don't understand why costs can't be kept down somewhat by people paying for their own healthcare and the poor can't also get healthcare through charities.

I would much rather pay £5,000 a year for better healthcare than pay £4,200 a year in NI and get the NHS. I would also give another £5,000 to non-profit hospitals in my area. I am really more interested in quality rather than cost, the NHS is not very good and has a monopoly on the healthcare market where I live and a near monopoly in every city. I also have 3 employee's I would be willing to take care of.

Nobody has self interest to stay healthy if it means you can't do what you want. It takes other insentives to do so, social pressure, finanical pressure. Look at smoking people don't giveup until they have social pressure from their family members or finanical pressure. The poor also can't afford to go to the gym, eat better food and are under more pressure than better off people, they also for the most part have more dangerous jobs. Which is why people should have social pressure to give money to charities so their healthcare is free.

A tree just fell on someone who used to work for me and he broke is neck, the same thing happened to him as what happened to me when I was born. My uncle just fell off his wagon and broke his back, the same thing happened to him. His son got burns on his face at work the same thing happened to him. So my case wasn't just a one off it is normal. People can't pay to improve the healthcare here because the NHS taxes them and has a monoploy on healthcare, you can't do anything but tolerate it.

No cities of 300,000 people shouldn't have better healthcare than counties with the same number of people. Yes but alteast I would have a choice and have responsibility for that choice. Funny there were no beds until in near died again though. Years likely, but not 13 years. As my parents would have a contract with that private hospital.

I would rather live in a culture in which people can be as bigotted as they like and still people refuse to use government force against them.