Scott Mayers

What's really happening here is that you are using the preamble to the charter of rights as an excuse to vent your hatred of Judeo-Christian beliefs and white Canadians. The clause that you cited has no legal ramifications whatsoever. It just hurts your feelings. EDIT: What countries, cultures don't have some skeletons in their closet? You want to point out Canada's flaws, our country has had a grand total of less than 5,000 slaves going back to before our nation was even formed. There are countries in the ME that still have slaves after more than 2,000 years and they still administer the death penalty for blasphemy. Canada is doing just awesome dude. If you're looking for a chance to do some real virtue-signalling or direct some hatred towards towards shitty people in backwards cultures you should start with Iran, Pakistan, etc. There's a reason why there's no immigration into those countries, and why they don't need border walls to stop people from just waltzing in, looking for a place to settle down. If it is superfluous in meaning that YOU may present as trivial, and given that it concerns non-religious people for its legal intent to set up a biased SPECIAL set of freedoms for merely a subset of the whole population, then my demand of its removal should be acceptable in logical terms to you. But it appears that you think it MUST be there or you wouldn't feel threatened should it NOT be there! Trying to turn the tables on me regarding 'hate' is odd. The fact that the constitution favors a unique subset of people based upon SPECIFIC cults and NOT the individual's rights, any 'freedoms' presented of those not of the protected groups are biased by those religious conditions. This is like if you had five children but gave favoritive precedence of 'superiority' to only a few of them, say three arbitrarily. The two LEFT OUT are neglected should you have a rule that permits the 'favored' children to eat first. While it may SEEM that it lacks direct means of 'hate', it still exists but is worse given the fact that the 'favoritism' is just a way to hide that you are abusing those left out. It would be the condition of those two children of the example starving. And if they complain, they get accused of 'hate'? I am born here on this Earth and have every right to complain, regardless of your will to shut me up. You are basically asserting that you KNOW that my conditions are as good as your own and that I should appreciate it as though I lived through your state of prosperity. Does 'peek-a-boo' still surprise you too? [ie, that you require believing only what you see in your eyes as existing?]

So? Nothing wrong with that. Then why not replace the word, "Supremacy of God', with "the inevitable power of Nature beyond Man's control"? And then, given this 'equal' phrasing demonstrates something not necessary to say, why any special preamble? If one is needed without bias to anyone: "The following is Canada's Constitution'" ....Oh wait, then why not leave that out too given the title already says what it is!!?

If a god existed, it would be 'natural' and thus already implicit IN NATURE, regardless. "God" implies more than what is of nature but BEYOND our capacity to detect. It's most popular appeal to it also having a 'virtuous' default is ignorant of either it being evil or without morality itself [ie, the "Problem of Evil"]. So yes, I'm biased. It is also irrational for HUMANS to be remotely required to speak on BEHALF of this being, should it exist. You can't tackle my argument about whether atheists aren't already behind the leadership of religions? If not, how would you know or not wihout having proof that God exists to be authoritatively passing its commands through SPECIFIC humans in power?

The preamble would be lacking justification to exist there given the 'Constitution' is a literal and formal work. Thus if it is a trivial note of appeal, why then not begin with, "In that Canada is founded upon the formation of the United States,.." The point is that this too has realistic truth about the people of 'foundation'. So that preamble is still superfluous and for being UNNECESSARY in a legal document, would need to be removed so as not to confuse those like the above religious posts believing it assures that their Judaeao-Chrisitian beliefs are also intended. I also argued how it preconditions the capacity to create RELIGIOUS biased laws under the banner of 'culture' as it protects UNIQUE religious beliefs and not all beliefs. I don't like religion in politics as it creates a means for government to excuse the rights of censorship and censure (via punishment) out of beliefs that are pretended to be universal without proof. It is not 'denying' anything historical to speak against the preamble. I'm against the presumption that the words IMPLY some 'supreme authority' of "God' as to any moral motives for a country's constitution. EDIT (added point): It happens to be a 'historical fact' too that Canada was founded upon reserving and isolating a human population like animals on "reservations". Why is this not there too?

I'm making arguments for why that preamble should be removed and you comment on your feelings? The list of postings here are responses to others as I try to answer each where possible.

No, just because might can make right doesn't mean it has to. I have no idea what nature would do it doesn't act with volition. All I know is that if I had the technology to make my government as transparent as possible I would use it. In the meantime we have to rely on a handful of inadequate institutional checks and balances based on little more than highfalutin ideals, empty promises and magic words. It's only been sustainable because we've had a planet for the easy picking. That's starting to change though. You think we should work WITH it staying there rather than challenge it. I don't believe we CAN outside of an 'appearance' because that preamble preconditions all that follows. I am also arguing here for why that preambe should be removed in the interest of everyone, including those who are (actually) religious. I lack the power to do anything more here.

I think the preamble is ridiculous and I think we'll be stuck with it until the end. I don't know why you would imagine I think there is some being running the government. All I said is that governments are out of our control. I just needed to get clarification, that's all. Your position then is just about whether it would be realistic. "a being running the government beyond the people's power" is what I assumed you MAY believe. I'd have to look back at what you said to me specifically to determine the confusion as you didn't requote it here for me to actually clarify or deny. Regardless, I understand that you agree to my position now.

The 'minority' in Canada is NOT the individual but the 'cult', contrary to its APPEARANCE. So, in actual fact, you are against the individual as a 'minority'. Any faith in some GROUP class based upon some belief in a genetic right of its members to an environmental arbitrary one, is 'racist' in some way. Thus you are also racist and are NOT someone I share of your own 'values.' You haven't actually proven that the preamble is universally applicable. You would also need to counter my point about how such a precondition of our state wouldn't attract the interest of the athiest to take authority but USE religious beliefs as a means to control the religious sheeple. Certainly IF the athiest was not a part of the foundational structure that provides justification for civil order, prove that you yourself are NOT athiest with devious thinking by providing proof of 'spirit' as existing yet alone virtuous (and non-evil).

You mean separation of the Provinces into their own 'states'. I'm not against this should it be required. But IF we are to affect change within our system, my proposal is required if everyone in our system is truly 'accepted' as equal and to prevent the powers of the federate oversight to act non-democratically. Whatever historical state existed that speaks of 'foundations' with respect to beliefs is not unique with respect to MANY religions. Because actual 'gods' are fraudulent mechanisms by manipulators wanting to feign some sense of moral superiority, the reality HAS to be that any real state is founded upon non-religious REALITY. There is nothing intrinsic to your claims or you should go back to your actual prior state where "Christianity" existed because it definitely was not here before hand. On top of that, you INSULT those actual 'First' which makes THEM the 'founders' IF you want to be technical. OR,....are you asserting that Natives religious (or non-relgious) beliefs prior to introducton of Christianity were themselves 'evil' or that they lacked any sense of 'morals'? You ARE speaking like an arrogant theif that goes against your 'foundations' of Christianity you think is justified or is it alright to be hypocritical in "Thou shalt not steal"? with regards to the Aboriginal? What matters today is for today's people regardless. That Constitution is illegitimate to me given it doesn't recognize me as either Aboriginal, nor of any belief in 'gods', nor any inheritance of fortune I'm sure you got from your theiving ancestors. You can't speak of something 'Judaeo-Chrisitan' if you can't BE "Judeao-Christian" in your own hypocritical behavior.

This doesn't get interpreted as meaning anything logical except, "it is what it is, therefore accept it as it is." !!!??? .

NO, the 'minority' is inappropriately assigned to GROUPS.....AND the classification scheme to define the issues in contention about supposed (group classed) minorities are deceptively manipulated to distract us to think of certain problems as DUE to bias of one's genetic composition rather than something coincidentally due to environmental factors. For example, discrimination against the 'minority' , Aboriginals, as a genetic class, is deemed to be poor due to racism today. While this certainly plays a role in the past, given our system believes in economic capitalism, the real reason for a logical classification, "poverty" as a problem very dominant among the Aboriginal, is NOT about racism essentially but of the very nature of one economic differences DUE to economic biases in inheritance laws. That the Catholics, for instance, WERE one of the dominant majority of our country's heritage who 'stole' the lands of the Natives due to real racism they themselve held, the ancestors of those Catholics who BENEFITED directly want absolution of such 'heritage' to be preserved of WHAT they took but want to distract the issue of poverty still present to be excused as some bias against them TODAY by everyone BUT the very Catholic inheritances. Where one IS 'Catholic' and in power, for this example, they would not overtly assign their justicational behavior as DUE to religious bias but in terms of 'cultural' arguments that appear to make them seem fair when they are not. This successfully permits this potential leader to have their cake and eat it too. The nature of the 'cultural' protections is excused FOR imposing religious reasons for behaviors where they have the power to define minority issues as due to some general 'cultural' negative (ie, racism) AND saves the particular inheritors of those 'cultures' whose ancestors were at fault from also being required to directly compensate the Aboriginals. That mere trivial preamble is the GATEWAY means of assuring particular people are permanently protected in perpetuity to BE discrimantory of 'minoirities' in a deceptive manner. Conserving religious cults of those fiscal or economically advantaged 'minorities' (the establishe wealth) is the interest being used to deflect attention away from the fact that economic inheritance is the present culprit. Religious protections are fogging up the coinciding 'cultural' classificationswith the 'economic' classifications that this preamble sets up to deceive. This preamble provides the means to create a smokescreen in legal terms in favor of those 'minorities' in power against those 'minorities' lacking it.

I don't know our comparative ages. (I'm 51) But you seem to also ignore even EARLIER history of the foundation of the United States, which contributes to WHY Canada became unbalanced in its power representation. To me, the founding 'loyalists' are cowardly and anti-people given their belief in keeping England as a 'supreme' authority; Quebec's population is made up of the French who were abandoned relatively due to France's own support of the American foundation on principles of the very Republicanism they themselves initiated in Europe. To say we require respecting some significance to particular people (actually, their genetic offspring in perpetuity) as though what one's ancestors did should be stereotypically passed on IN LAW, makes me ask why the 'positive' (ie, 'good' heritage factors) stereotypes should be conserved yet abandon the negative for disrespecting the capacity of present people to differ from their parent's environmental beliefs in its day. You can't expect to demand favor for heritage rights while not respecting those inheritances of DEBT that would be required to be held against the same benefactors of the present. I can't get into other issues of things like the Holocaust, Soviet Union, nor China, without digression. I don't care what you BELIEVE is true of history. What matters is to whether you think that we "inherit our fathers sins" on par with the beneficial cultural concepts. I am extremely logical on this issue and you are welcome to challenge me. But I don't LACK wisdom on World History and my age is irrelevant regardless.

So long as they keep saying it's 'for the common good'. Turth is the word doesn't matter. What matters is doing right. If other readers are paying attention, THIS is precisely my concern. THAT you presume a SPECIFIC ideal of what is 'truth' with regards to moral considerations is FIXED by something in Nature, you presume it fair to impose laws "FOR the people" but not "BY the people," should the majority disagree to something you believe is essential. I accept your personal difference of belief but not as a right to impose over others what you may particularly believe is of some 'god' that is not present to prove nor disprove its opinion directly.

Again, if it is 'trivial' then why is it so necessary? You are denying the significance of it yet don't look at the nature of the protected religions. You may be missing some of my particular arguments in conversation with others here that may make you think different give your last point: "Conferation is the problem." I happen to agree to this IN PART (depending on your own interpretation to mine). We legitimize ironically the very Confederates of the American South yet actually support the original ideals they fought for: a right to have formal recognition of DISTINCTION of people based upon stereotypes relating one's genetic roots. A 'shoult out to god' is LEGALLY set as a precondition of the WHOLE Constitution for specific reasons. Otherwise, it would be superfluous and you'd be able to point out how there is NO SPECIAL favor of groups based upon religion nor genetic heritage.

"There should never be blind trust in government. That's the point. Government cannot assert some special higher authority because it doesn't have it." As long as there is that preamble, the government DOES have power of authority REGARDLESS of trust. To say that it cannot assert some special higher power, why does our Constitution NOT say that specifically to assure this AND still protect specific select religious beliefs? The Catholic Church, the Queen (Anglicans), and the distinct religious declaration of Natives being presumed as distinct entities based upon their mere genetic composition? These are examples contradictory to your statement IN FACT. We are expected to have FAITH in these select groups (and those other outside groups they authorize in privilege of their power).

It doesn't have much to do directly with the operation of the government. It is an expression that, not only acknowledges the existence of God, but also acknowledges that the nation, the government, the population and each individual depends on Him. This should do you no harm, except for the expression possibly attacking your pride. There is no need to make that a problem of the whole nation though. If is doesn't have anything 'directly' significant to the operation of government, then why are these conditional statemenst essential? It just preassures that whatever follows the preamble is conditioned to something beyond our power to affect. Then if such power of governments are submissive to such invisible authority, why is it necessary at all to HAVE a 'Constitution' beyond the faith you presume is necessary. That preamble is intentionally designed to set up more conditions that FAVOR specific religious people's beliefs and DISFAVORS those outside of that group's control. Thus, for instance, the Catholic Church is one of the Constitutionally designated PEOPLE as conserved and protected uniquely. This transfers the power TO that religious organization in a way that has no direct accountability to the people of Canada. Their loyalty is not about all people in Canada and so turns this 'government' into a FORCED INTSTITUTE of management contrary to any appearance of 'democracy' or acceptance of 'divesity' it is being sold as. This means that the Catholic Church, in essence, acts as a secret power of veto in line with the Queen, for example. [I don't assume royalty either as essential for the same reasoning.]

What should shine above all else is that there is not a single moment in history when human beings have had total control over their governments. Technology is probably the only thing that could attain that but I can certainly also allow that new forms of dystopia could develop - the rise of atheism certainly hasn't been a guarantee against other just as potent delusions from retarding the ability to reason, especially collecvtively. Your responses are confusing me to where you stand with my own proposal to remove the preamble. Are you for its presense? Your first sentence in response to Zeitgeist appears to be supporting the idea that there is some being running the government beyond the people's power. I already recognize nature itself as defaulted to be more powerful but it too doesn't require officially asserting. What would nature do BEYOND people's involvement (including technology we create) matter?

Agree to your intent. Bur if 'spirit' is REQUIRED to be in people regardless, asserting any statements about the constitution formalizing this should be superfluous to the religious and thus unnecessary. But yet people of such 'spirit' have DEMANDED this preamble which contradicts their faith UNLESS something is deceptively involved. And given our Constitution conserves SPECIAL subsets of the people based upon religious (or 'spiritual') justification, that proves why that preamble is there not trivially about some 'spirit' within people's nature. If Nature is 'god', then it doesn't require people to defend its 'spirit' as though believing in the concept of belief is most significant. That begs of totalitarianism because it is saying 'blindly trust those who assert virtue in the unseen'. Governments are secular institutes of management that belong to ALL people, not a TOOL for manipulation. Supporting that preamble is actually a vote for the very logic that leads to totalitarianism. And I point to the oldest 'civilizations' in our world as proof of this. The nature of KEEPING some condition of polticians to be 'spiritual' counters the idea that the management system belongs to all people. My point of the last few arguments is that IF YOU ARE correct about premitting culture/religious laws discriminating specific people on the grounds of religious rights, even those who seem to trust their leaders for acting what appears IN THEIR FAVOR of 'spiritual' supremacy, this faith is unwarranted when the nature of those without it who ARE presumed 'evil' would be drawn into positions that delude you with better accuracy and will. The peamble is part of the con legally devised to permit the right of government to create and enforce laws contrary to the interests OF the people precisely because such leaders lack the SAME "FAITH' in the masses that you think we should have in them uniquely. They want such cultural laws to impose arbitrary ruling where needed. THAT is NOT a system I have faith in AND actually have more justification to have a counter-faith in. Removing the preamble, if it is merely trivial about something 'spiritual', isn't necessary and so shouldn't threaten the religious. Yet why was it so deemed essential? Why resist removing it?

Today's problems are not due to the philosophy of the left but to those within it that are pluralistically conservative. These people are USING the cult as the smallest unit of measure rather than the individual. While SOME on the right believe in the individual, this is only also deceptive given they are actually only interested in ARGUING as though the speak for them. Instead, what is 'conserved' on the right is those who have or have had more power to dictate the terms of others BY the use of capital/money they hold and fear having to share this Earth. When government is run by the right, they dismantle it so that the power moves out of the hands of the DEMOCRACY and into their PRIVATE DOMAIN OF INFLUENCE. So your interpretation of the situation is false even where we agree to the necessity of getting change done in the CRTC. The FOX News ownership set up their network in the style of HardCopy, a ragmag television show of the late '80s/early '90s. Their philosophy is ENTERTAINING 'news' as a means to appeal to dumbing down the masses because businesses succeed best in terms of profit when its 'customers/clients' have BLIND FAITH in them. So don't presume CRTC would be better under the right by far. In fact, the acts that I'm most concerned with as violating the people's rights are intrinsically right-wing, ...like 'culture' controls, censorship, and the Identity Cults. CNN New influencing CBC? No. The main staff is presently run by strong feminism (a type of right-wing ideal: Nationalistic Feminism). They are made up of a mix of party ideals but share certain favor for other Nationalists that are NOT of the normal right-wing varieties. AND, by the way, much of the U.S. has actually been influenced by Canada indirectly through our use of Multiculturalism. Media in general is monoplized here in Canada (though made to look as though it isn't.) CBC actually differs from the rest here on that fact. Even if I don't share all the emotional-laden and religious favoritism there, its existence is relatively small in contrast to the rest who act in a right-wing bias with more fervor. I don't get why you interpret everything as 'liberal' evil.?? You know that the left IN PRINCIPLE, is (1) Democratic (believes in majority people rule with each person as equal), (2) Socialistic (believes government must serve AT LEAST to manage issues EACH Group or Person needs to survive and fairly distribute this Earth among us 'fairly') This ideal is not itself at fault in contrast to the right, which believes in real people to have POWER over others by the concept of 'ownership'. This is the power to enslave others because money and capital represents the actual 'energy' of other people or parts of the Earth beyond an equal and fair distribution. AND, note, the intrinsic belief OF the right is, where they have such power, to actually OWN the media for themselves and NOT the people. That way, the poorer masses would serve the owner best when they have the sole power to manipulate the mediums between individuals NOT of their own family or cult. This would, thus, be worse under the right.

Oh yes, I see that a lot on threads. But see my above couple of responses (on topic) that I think you might consider more appealing to my logic here. And then does not the risk of what I suggested not present a good justification of appeal against the preamble that even devoutly religious people might back up as well?

I missed something I think. What was this a reference to? (here or somewhere else?)

I think that things like population controls are an essential environmental necessity and that the power granted to individuals to add more people in the world itself is both a human rights crime. As to detaining religious groups, the nature of success of such groups to merely exist in such a country should tell you the degree of strength of those religions as above normal. In the threat of intolerance by the religous, such as how you think we need to be forced this upon us here, is also potentially hazardous for the particular kind of religion. Note that Socialist countries actually have MORE 'democratic powers than ours! The problem with that is how there is a tendency to favor lower common denominators on certain issues. It is arrogant of Canada (and the West) to simply presume their actions are bad without sufficient inspection,....something we are lacking. But see my last note. If you expect your leaders to be religious, then you will end up having the deceptive athiests maximize their 'evil' when at the top and who FAVOR the utility of religion just as you do, not the opposite.

To repeat what I just posted last, this preamble if not removed WILL be worse for even the religious because given the atheist lacks the threat of some super authority above them, what better 'evil' would it be to have atheists faking that they are religous and simply infiltrating your religious authorities?

Unless the politician is not actually religious but pretending to be......something sincere religious people should take note on: if we are all expected to respect religious power by that preamble, you may end up just getting what you ask for by having atheists toss their hands up in the air and start playing along. Maybe its already happing?! Considering the atheist is most 'evil' by the religious, what worse of a character would you expect than to have them successfully infiltrate and run the religious organs? [...something I already suspect the religious are doing in some of our own community.] I challenge the religious to then counter THIS argument. That is, that preamble is as much a real threat to your own freedoms!

When Trudeau got in, (and Trump in the U.S.), I proposed that for any right of government to censor, we should require that all politicians have cameras on them 24/7 for all of us to witness. [Why is "in camera" the term used, by the way, to HIDE them from the cameras? Shouldn't the term be 'out-of-camera'? ]