God and the Canadian Constitution - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  God and the Canadian Constitution

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   God and the Canadian Constitution

Fjorxc the Maniac posted 06-08-99 07:19 PM ET
Well. Not sure aboot how many non-Canadians there would be on this forum who really care aboot this, but I'm posting this anyway.
Recently, an MP from the New Democratic Party presented a petition to the House of Commons collected mainly among members of a humanist organization in British Columbia. The jist being that any and all references to God should be taken oot of the Constitution, so as not to offend the people with non-Christian beliefs.
Feh.
'Tis idiotic, I say. What're your comments on the matter?

Fjorxc the Maniac
Unwashed Village Idiot,
Wanderer,
CWALer,
8th Canadian Faction of Humanity.
walruskkkch posted 06-08-99 07:59 PM ET
Canada is a godforsaken country anyway so what does it matter? Just kidding of course, but what do you expect? God is responsible for all the bad things in this world. Go ahead, ask any liberal yourself! What is going on here is that the secularists want to eliminate all vestiges of a religiously based morality sytem, and manifestations of such, in government. Given the diverse world of religious choices and convictions this doesn't seem like a bad idea. The only problem is the only thing that can replace it is a kind of moral reltivism which has a difficult time in being able to find fault or even disapprove of any human activity. If the population was entirely well versed in the practice of actual freedom with its two most important features, personal responsibility and respect, this might not be a problem, but what passes for personal freedom nowadays is really just licentiousness and disregard for others. Taking God out of the equation removes the last vestige of a truly outside force of restraint on human behaviour. All I can say in conclusion is "GODSPEED YOU CRAZY CANUCKS"
WIth warm regards from an even crazier place south of the border I remain,
Your faithful and obedient servant
Philip McCauley posted 06-09-99 02:26 PM ET
Geez...this stuff creeps me out. I'm an athiest, but it would just seem WIERD to me to ask the US government to take in god we trust off the currency, and 'one nation under god' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I think some association of athiests petitioned for just that. I'd rather go to church than link up with those guys, thank you very much.
Borodino posted 06-09-99 03:21 PM ET
Congress actually added "under God" to the Pledge a good deal after it was written by Edward Bellamy.
Ambassador Collins posted 06-09-99 03:34 PM ET
It is a great thing indeed. This is one of the few things that Canada has done right.
CrayonX posted 06-09-99 06:44 PM ET
Yeah, interesting. It may be also intersting to note that this MP is also an out-of-the-closet homosexual who has had some tiffs with churches and the local paper also published a poem he sent to his lover on St. Valentine's Day. I don't remember it, but the word "frolic" was in there a few times.
This guy has apparently offended almost 95% of the local population, if phone/news polls are to be believed.
JT 3 posted 06-09-99 06:56 PM ET
Whoa, Collins barely comes to the Forums anymore.
ANYway, I agree with Phil. Keep it.
Valtyr posted 06-09-99 07:01 PM ET
CrayonX: err...so what's wrong with that?
Valtyr
Bewildered
Titan posted 06-09-99 07:02 PM ET
I think this idea is stupid. It won't serve any purpose, and it will cost money (like if we had some to throw out the windows). I hope our ''brilliant'' Prime Minister does not listen to this guy.
Titan.
Fjorxc the Maniac posted 06-09-99 07:21 PM ET
The other day, the local TV station did a phone poll on the news for the number of people agreeing with this proposal or not. I believe the results were something like this:
Yes- 48
No- 860
What kind of message does that send? Yer goin' down, Sven. You and all your humanist BC friends.
Fjorxc the Maniac
Unwashed Village Idiot,
Wanderer,
CWALer,
8th Canadian Faction of Humanity.
Victor Galis posted 06-09-99 08:14 PM ET
Damn it! Why couldn't he be from the Parti Quebecois. They need to be discredited at all costs.
Fjorxc the Maniac posted 06-09-99 09:40 PM ET
The reason for that, Victor, is that even the Bloc Quebecois isn't stupid enough to try something like this. Brainless New Democrat slime.
Dark Nexus posted 06-09-99 10:26 PM ET
Incase you haven't heard..... Sven Robinson has been made a back-bencher by the NDP for this fiasco....
SnowFire posted 06-09-99 11:01 PM ET
Darn. I would greatly have enjoyed the ruin of the Quebecois party as well. Damn facists driving all the English out of Quebec.
In any case, if I was writing a constitution today, there's no way I'd add God to it. We theists shouldn't need to imprint our mark on the state -just our beliefs. But going back to revise an old one? That's just silly and divisive. It's like going back to old Western movies and making them politically correct- let them stand. Of course, if anyone produced Birth of a Nation today, they'd be rightly pilloried. But no one wants to censor that, and theism and racism are miles apart anyway- I mean, I'm Presbyterian, so I don't want to sound like I'm betraying my faith or anything.
Philip McCauley posted 06-09-99 11:46 PM ET
I am of the belief that California and Quebec should seceed (sp?) from their respective governments and form their own nation. I also believe that, failing that, one should have to show a valid passport to enter or leave either area. (I AM kidding, btw)...
This is off topic, but exactly why do so many Qebecians want to break away from Canada? Enlighten the ignorant Amercian.
I am of the opinion that not only should beliefs not be forced upon people, but lack of belief should not be forced upon them. Just because church (temple, shrine, whatever) and state must be separate does not mean that we must completely cleanse the latter of any trace of the former. If people want to say 'in God we trust' and have a brief prayer together before school, LET THEM! It's not hurting anyone. I'm a member of the tiny minority who might be offended, and I can confidently tell you that the few other atheists I know couldn't care less.
Simply voicing the belief of the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.
Titan posted 06-10-99 10:44 AM ET
Philip, there is not that much quebecquers that want to seceede. Ther is only about thirty percent of the population that really want it. In this number, about 75 % want it for ''having their country''. Another 40% of the population is against the separation, and the last 30% fluctuates depending on the situation.
It only gets so much publicity because of the politician that ,ake the publicity and wont talk about anything else. It will not happen.
BTW, half of the members of the Parti Qu�b�cois are communist.
Titan.
Natguy posted 06-11-99 02:55 PM ET
Well, only a third of the military aged men in the Colonies showed uo to fight in the Continental Army, indicating that not that many people were for the Revolution (actually it was a revolt, not a revolution, but revolt has a bad connotation and the Founding Fathers wanted people to think of them in a nicer way, and "revolution" sounds like somethnig heroic, like a Crusade)
I'm not sure what that had to do with anything, except Titan's statement about Quebec.
Nathan
who thinks we should've stayed with England.
A revolt over taxes (that weren't very high taxes at all)?! Give me a break.
(as you can see, I have absolutely no feeling of patriotism for my country. I hate it here! I'd rather live in Europe or Canada sounds nice)
Philip McCauley posted 06-13-99 11:03 PM ET
Nathan, you can bet that it wasn't the common man decrying those taxes (which WERE much higher than in England). It was the rich and the government whining about the taxes.
The colonies also did not have representation in the English Parlament. Haven't you ever read the revolutionary motto? "No taxation without representation!" There are a bunch more problems with England that I can't remember, but were adressed in the Declaration of Independance.
A revolt is a revolution in progress, or a revolution after it failed.
And I hate to tell you this, but Canada economically is a 51st state. Though they probably won't admit it.
Btw, Titan, I don't think you've answered my question. WHY do the quebeckers want their own country? Or is there no real reason?
walruskkkch posted 06-13-99 11:08 PM ET
"taxation without representation is tyranny!"
"Taxation with representation ain't so hot either."
White_Cat posted 06-14-99 02:04 AM ET
This is the same Svend Robinson who presided over an illegal assisted suicide. And the one who wanted the government to lower the age of consent for adult/minor sex to 14 (I think he succeeded at this, actually).
More recently, he decided he wanted to go to Yugoslavia to "help out" the Kosovar refugees. I heard a local radio commentator reading about his "plan," struggling the whole time to keep from laughing at it. Basically, Svend (Sven?) wanted to fly over there and just wander around looking for something to do. He hadn't even scheduled for any transportation. ("Hey Mr. Serb Soldier Guy, can I ride on the back of your tank to your next mass killing?")
Titan posted 06-14-99 07:58 PM ET
Philp, most of the Quebequers want their own country for no particualr reason, except a certain patriotism. Others want it to protect the french canadian culture. Some say that historically the English took advantage of us ( more or less true).
But all in all, they can't come with good reasons. They are separatists beacuse their [arents and friends are, and they cant forge their own opinion. Some have good resons, buit they are very rare.
Titan.
Titan.
Spoe posted 06-14-99 09:53 PM ET
"Congress actually added 'under God' to the Pledge a good deal after it was written by Edward Bellamy."
Also, ISTR that the prefered salute was changed to holding your hand over your heart from what essentially amounted to a Nazi salute only with the palm facing up.
White_Cat posted 06-17-99 03:44 AM ET
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to claim that the Americans who wanted "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were Nazi-like because their original plans for a salute were similar to the ones that the Nazis used over almost two hundred years later?
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: God and the Canadian Constitution
Fjorxc the Maniac	posted 06-08-99 07:19 PM ET Well. Not sure aboot how many non-Canadians there would be on this forum who really care aboot this, but I'm posting this anyway. Recently, an MP from the New Democratic Party presented a petition to the House of Commons collected mainly among members of a humanist organization in British Columbia. The jist being that any and all references to God should be taken oot of the Constitution, so as not to offend the people with non-Christian beliefs. Feh. 'Tis idiotic, I say. What're your comments on the matter? Fjorxc the Maniac Unwashed Village Idiot, Wanderer, CWALer, 8th Canadian Faction of Humanity.
walruskkkch	posted 06-08-99 07:59 PM ET Canada is a godforsaken country anyway so what does it matter? Just kidding of course, but what do you expect? God is responsible for all the bad things in this world. Go ahead, ask any liberal yourself! What is going on here is that the secularists want to eliminate all vestiges of a religiously based morality sytem, and manifestations of such, in government. Given the diverse world of religious choices and convictions this doesn't seem like a bad idea. The only problem is the only thing that can replace it is a kind of moral reltivism which has a difficult time in being able to find fault or even disapprove of any human activity. If the population was entirely well versed in the practice of actual freedom with its two most important features, personal responsibility and respect, this might not be a problem, but what passes for personal freedom nowadays is really just licentiousness and disregard for others. Taking God out of the equation removes the last vestige of a truly outside force of restraint on human behaviour. All I can say in conclusion is "GODSPEED YOU CRAZY CANUCKS" WIth warm regards from an even crazier place south of the border I remain, Your faithful and obedient servant
Philip McCauley	posted 06-09-99 02:26 PM ET Geez...this stuff creeps me out. I'm an athiest, but it would just seem WIERD to me to ask the US government to take in god we trust off the currency, and 'one nation under god' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I think some association of athiests petitioned for just that. I'd rather go to church than link up with those guys, thank you very much.
Borodino	posted 06-09-99 03:21 PM ET Congress actually added "under God" to the Pledge a good deal after it was written by Edward Bellamy.
Ambassador Collins	posted 06-09-99 03:34 PM ET It is a great thing indeed. This is one of the few things that Canada has done right.
CrayonX	posted 06-09-99 06:44 PM ET Yeah, interesting. It may be also intersting to note that this MP is also an out-of-the-closet homosexual who has had some tiffs with churches and the local paper also published a poem he sent to his lover on St. Valentine's Day. I don't remember it, but the word "frolic" was in there a few times. This guy has apparently offended almost 95% of the local population, if phone/news polls are to be believed.
JT 3	posted 06-09-99 06:56 PM ET Whoa, Collins barely comes to the Forums anymore. ANYway, I agree with Phil. Keep it.
Valtyr	posted 06-09-99 07:01 PM ET CrayonX: err...so what's wrong with that? Valtyr Bewildered
Titan	posted 06-09-99 07:02 PM ET I think this idea is stupid. It won't serve any purpose, and it will cost money (like if we had some to throw out the windows). I hope our ''brilliant'' Prime Minister does not listen to this guy. Titan.
Fjorxc the Maniac	posted 06-09-99 07:21 PM ET The other day, the local TV station did a phone poll on the news for the number of people agreeing with this proposal or not. I believe the results were something like this: Yes- 48 No- 860 What kind of message does that send? Yer goin' down, Sven. You and all your humanist BC friends. Fjorxc the Maniac Unwashed Village Idiot, Wanderer, CWALer, 8th Canadian Faction of Humanity.
Victor Galis	posted 06-09-99 08:14 PM ET Damn it! Why couldn't he be from the Parti Quebecois. They need to be discredited at all costs.
Fjorxc the Maniac	posted 06-09-99 09:40 PM ET The reason for that, Victor, is that even the Bloc Quebecois isn't stupid enough to try something like this. Brainless New Democrat slime.
Dark Nexus	posted 06-09-99 10:26 PM ET Incase you haven't heard..... Sven Robinson has been made a back-bencher by the NDP for this fiasco....
SnowFire	posted 06-09-99 11:01 PM ET Darn. I would greatly have enjoyed the ruin of the Quebecois party as well. Damn facists driving all the English out of Quebec. In any case, if I was writing a constitution today, there's no way I'd add God to it. We theists shouldn't need to imprint our mark on the state -just our beliefs. But going back to revise an old one? That's just silly and divisive. It's like going back to old Western movies and making them politically correct- let them stand. Of course, if anyone produced Birth of a Nation today, they'd be rightly pilloried. But no one wants to censor that, and theism and racism are miles apart anyway- I mean, I'm Presbyterian, so I don't want to sound like I'm betraying my faith or anything.
Philip McCauley	posted 06-09-99 11:46 PM ET I am of the belief that California and Quebec should seceed (sp?) from their respective governments and form their own nation. I also believe that, failing that, one should have to show a valid passport to enter or leave either area. (I AM kidding, btw)... This is off topic, but exactly why do so many Qebecians want to break away from Canada? Enlighten the ignorant Amercian. I am of the opinion that not only should beliefs not be forced upon people, but lack of belief should not be forced upon them. Just because church (temple, shrine, whatever) and state must be separate does not mean that we must completely cleanse the latter of any trace of the former. If people want to say 'in God we trust' and have a brief prayer together before school, LET THEM! It's not hurting anyone. I'm a member of the tiny minority who might be offended, and I can confidently tell you that the few other atheists I know couldn't care less. Simply voicing the belief of the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.
Titan	posted 06-10-99 10:44 AM ET Philip, there is not that much quebecquers that want to seceede. Ther is only about thirty percent of the population that really want it. In this number, about 75 % want it for ''having their country''. Another 40% of the population is against the separation, and the last 30% fluctuates depending on the situation. It only gets so much publicity because of the politician that ,ake the publicity and wont talk about anything else. It will not happen. BTW, half of the members of the Parti Qu�b�cois are communist. Titan.
Natguy	posted 06-11-99 02:55 PM ET Well, only a third of the military aged men in the Colonies showed uo to fight in the Continental Army, indicating that not that many people were for the Revolution (actually it was a revolt, not a revolution, but revolt has a bad connotation and the Founding Fathers wanted people to think of them in a nicer way, and "revolution" sounds like somethnig heroic, like a Crusade) I'm not sure what that had to do with anything, except Titan's statement about Quebec. Nathan who thinks we should've stayed with England. A revolt over taxes (that weren't very high taxes at all)?! Give me a break. (as you can see, I have absolutely no feeling of patriotism for my country. I hate it here! I'd rather live in Europe or Canada sounds nice)
Philip McCauley	posted 06-13-99 11:03 PM ET Nathan, you can bet that it wasn't the common man decrying those taxes (which WERE much higher than in England). It was the rich and the government whining about the taxes. The colonies also did not have representation in the English Parlament. Haven't you ever read the revolutionary motto? "No taxation without representation!" There are a bunch more problems with England that I can't remember, but were adressed in the Declaration of Independance. A revolt is a revolution in progress, or a revolution after it failed. And I hate to tell you this, but Canada economically is a 51st state. Though they probably won't admit it. Btw, Titan, I don't think you've answered my question. WHY do the quebeckers want their own country? Or is there no real reason?
walruskkkch	posted 06-13-99 11:08 PM ET "taxation without representation is tyranny!" "Taxation with representation ain't so hot either."
White_Cat	posted 06-14-99 02:04 AM ET This is the same Svend Robinson who presided over an illegal assisted suicide. And the one who wanted the government to lower the age of consent for adult/minor sex to 14 (I think he succeeded at this, actually). More recently, he decided he wanted to go to Yugoslavia to "help out" the Kosovar refugees. I heard a local radio commentator reading about his "plan," struggling the whole time to keep from laughing at it. Basically, Svend (Sven?) wanted to fly over there and just wander around looking for something to do. He hadn't even scheduled for any transportation. ("Hey Mr. Serb Soldier Guy, can I ride on the back of your tank to your next mass killing?")
Titan	posted 06-14-99 07:58 PM ET Philp, most of the Quebequers want their own country for no particualr reason, except a certain patriotism. Others want it to protect the french canadian culture. Some say that historically the English took advantage of us ( more or less true). But all in all, they can't come with good reasons. They are separatists beacuse their [arents and friends are, and they cant forge their own opinion. Some have good resons, buit they are very rare. Titan. Titan.
Spoe	posted 06-14-99 09:53 PM ET "Congress actually added 'under God' to the Pledge a good deal after it was written by Edward Bellamy." Also, ISTR that the prefered salute was changed to holding your hand over your heart from what essentially amounted to a Nazi salute only with the palm facing up.
White_Cat	posted 06-17-99 03:44 AM ET What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to claim that the Americans who wanted "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were Nazi-like because their original plans for a salute were similar to the ones that the Nazis used over almost two hundred years later?