blackbird

That might work for some things. We did learn certain things as we grew up from our parents, from our education, and from reading and on the media about right and wrong. But these days much on the media is wrong because it is part of the new world of woke. So people who have no Biblical faith or Bible knowledge are left without any foundation. They watch what is on TV and maybe even the commercials and see two men riding a bike together on a dating commercial and think this is normal.

Comparisons like that don't really serve as a guide as to what is right or wrong though. Do you have any way to determine right from wrong?

Here is one-minute video on the change to the Crown. Putting a snowflake in the crown kind of fits with a Trudeau crown as the snowflake could be a fitting symbol depending on one's point of view. FIRST READING: Did Trudeau turn the Canadian Crown into a woke icon? (msn.com) Derogatory use of the word: Snowflake :- an overly sensitive or easily offended person, or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics:

How would you know what is evil and what is not? What is your guide or reference as to what is right or wrong?

National Post article, "First Reading: Did Trudeau Turn the Canadian Crown Into a Woke Icon?" FIRST READING: Did Trudeau turn the Canadian Crown into a woke icon? (msn.com) _____________________________________________________________--- The Governor General's government website has a link to the Heraldry pages that show various heraldry symbols that the "Canadian Heraldry Authority" as they call their department produces. This bureaucracy is under the control of the the Governor General, Mary Simon. You can see the various symbols they produce. If you understand the GG is heavily attached to her aboriginal heritage and of course most of these so-called heraldry items will reflect FN ideas or culture. Perhaps that is where the idea for the woke crown came from.

The Fleur-de-lis and a cross are present in all crowns and coat-of-arms in Britain and the Commonwealth. It is not something that bureaucrats tinker with and change at a whim except in... you guessed it, Trudeau's Canada. Now the historic symbols which have always been a part of the crown for centuries will be replaced by a golden-coloured maple leaf and a white snowflake which have nothing to do with Canada's history or ties to the Monarchy.

The Trudeau bureaucracy have decided to change the Royal Crown by removing the historic and famous Fleur de lis from the sides of the crown and replacing it with a unimpressive and unimaginative maple leaf. This of course changes the Coat of Arms as well. This is an insult to Canada, our historical roots, and should also be an insult to French Canada or Quebec which also has much historical ties to the Fleur de lis: " Fleur-de-lis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Fleur-de-lis (disambiguation). A fleur-de-lis or, as used in heraldry The fleur-de-lis, also spelled fleur-de-lys (plural fleurs-de-lis or fleurs-de-lys),[pron 1] is a lily (in French, fleur and lis mean 'flower' and 'lily' respectively) that is used as a decorative design or symbol. The fleur-de-lis has been used in the heraldry of numerous European nations, but is particularly associated with France, notably during its monarchical period. The fleur-de-lis became "at one and the same time, religious, political, dynastic, artistic, emblematic, and symbolic," especially in French heraldry.[4] The fleur-de-lis has been used by French royalty and throughout history to represent saints of France. In particular, the Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph are often depicted with a lily. The fleur-de-lis is represented in Unicode at U+269C ⚜ in the Miscellaneous Symbols block. Origin[edit] 15th-century manuscript depicting an angel sending the fleurs-de-lis to Clovis. From the Bedford Hours in the British Library, London. The fleur de lis is widely thought to be a stylized version of the species Iris pseudacorus, or Iris florentina.[5][6] However, the lily (genus lilium, family Liliaceae) and the iris (family Iridaceae) are two different plants, phylogenetically and taxonomically unrelated. Lily (in Italian: giglio) is the name usually associated with the stylized flower in the Florentine heraldic devices. Decorative ornaments that resemble the fleur-de-lis have appeared in artwork from the earliest human civilizations.[citation needed] According to Pierre-Augustin Boissier de Sauvages, an 18th-century French naturalist and lexicographer:[7]

I already told you I don't support Romanism on various other postings because it is an unbiblical false religion not in agreement with the Bible. Protestant churches are just normal societies, who, in many cases, their beliefs are in agreement with the Bible on the central teachings. Each has the right to govern themselves as they wish. We do live in a free country where people have freedom of association and freedom of religion. If you want to see a rigid closed hierarchy, just look at the Liberal Party. They don't even allow someone who defends the right to life (anti-abortion) to be a candidate.

" The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 14:1 KJV Unbelief is not a good place to be in. It has serious consequences for eternity unless one changes.

You are making a strange assumption. Real churches are Bible-believing churches. Strange that you would question why any organization has a structure or hierarchy. Every organization needs some structure in order to exist and function properly. An organized church is no different than any other organization in society. Where did you get the idea it is a "rigid, extremely opague army-like hierarchy"? That doesn't make much sense. If might be true if you are referring to some kind of cult. I don't know. We do live in a fallen world and there are many different things happening in the world, some good and some bad and some in between. There are different ways Churches govern themselves just like any society. Some might have elections to choose their officers. Some have annual general meetings where they give written financial reports to the members. Some have requirements one must agree with to become a member, such as agreeing to the church's beliefs or confession of faith. They have varying degrees of structure and each might operate in a different way. There is nothing necessarily wrong or illegal in the way they run themselves. There is nothing "rigid extremely opague army-like hierarchy about it". I think you are just inventing things to be critical about churches because you disagree with it. Too bad. We have freedom of religion here.

You are the one who comes on here expressing your opinions or moral issues, but refuses to say what the basis is of your opinions. The fact is when you say it is none of my concern or business, you are basically admitting you have no basis for your moral ideas. Otherwise why would you keep it secret? Simple really.

What is "formal church"? I would not presume or attempt to defend all churches. There are many false ones and many different shades. Roman churches for example are not Biblical so can't even be counted as such. Were you baptized or raised in a church? Your main point that they have little to do with God is not actually true. As there are many false churches, you should be more specific in exactly what you mean if you can. There are true churches with people in them that believe the Bible and believe in Jesus Christ. If you are referring to the building, that is just a place to worship with others, hear the Bible being preached, and learn about God. A church is often also considered a kind of hospital where sick sinners go to find help, guidance and salvation. Salvation can only be had by God's grace through faith. A church can never save anyone itself. The Bible doesn't say it can. It is not a place of perfect people. Nobody claimed it was. It is just a place of fellowship, learning, and worshiping God with other like-minded believers.

I prefer the historic special symbols that have some meaning. I don't think any particular party should change such symbols to fit their own ideology. This is part of Canada's history and shouldn't be tampered with. Any such proposal to change a fundamental symbol should be considered a Constitutional change and be subject the amendment formula and the overwhelming support of the Canadian people.

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:21-23KJV "Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous." Psalm 31:18 KJV "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,read more. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-5 KJV

This is the Trudeau Crown which is replacing the actual Royal Crown. This is not a joke. This is for real. This is trading crosses and fleur-de-lis for maple leaves and a snowflake.

Canada unveils new crown with snowflake and maple leaves instead of religious symbols The federal government has revealed its new design for the Canadian Royal Crown that sits atop the Canada Coat of Arms. The new crown, which is a heraldic emblem and not a material object, replaces the religious symbols with more explicitly Canadian symbolism, trading crosses and fleur-de-lis for maple leaves and a snowflake. The St. Edward’s Crown, which also currently decorates police and military badges and various emblems of sovereignty, has been part of the Arms of Canada since 1957. But the new design, created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, has sparked concern that the crown has become politicized, National Post columnist John Ivison wrote last week, before the new design had been officially revealed . Some critics have called it the “Trudeau Crown.” “It means the proposed Canadian crown is totally unconnected to the King or the coronation,” said Christopher McCreery, author and expert on Canada’s relationship with the Crown. “It means the unity of the symbol of the Royal Crown that represents the sovereign throughout the realms will be broken, further distancing the King and the monarchy as an institution.” McCreery said he was concerned the redesign was undertaken with “no consultation or debate, developed in secret.” The top portion of Canada’s Royal Coat of Arms as it currently looks, with a depiction of St. Edward’s Crown, worn by Queen Elizabeth II.© Handout The Governor General’s website notes that the new crown was “approved in April 2023 by His Majesty The King on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada.” It was designed by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, a principal artist at the Canadian Heraldic Authority. King Charles wore the St. Edward’s Crown for his coronation, which his late mother Queen Elizabeth used. However, Charles has chosen the Tudor Crown as his insignia and is depicted wearing it in official portraits, (despite it having been destroyed in 1649). "When the change was announced on Sept. 26, Ottawa saw an opportunity to introduce a “‘Canadian Crown,’ and over time, reinvent the supreme symbol of Canada, the Royal Coat of Arms,” Ivison wrote. “The structure of the Canadian Royal Crown, a gold rim and two intersecting arches set with pearls, is identical to that of the Tudor Crown,” save for some “highly stylized” touches, notes the website of the Governor General. The Canadianized crown is festooned with maple leaves (“a quintessential Canadian symbol”) and topped with a snowflake emblem (“a reference to Canada being a northern realm.”) “The stylized snowflake makes a direct connection with the insignia of the Order of Canada, one of our country’s highest honours, of which The King is the sovereign,” the Governor General’s website states. “In a nod to the importance of Canada’s landscape and the environment, the upper edge of the rim displays a line of triangular peaks and dips. Like the snowflake, these forms recall the design of the Canadian Diadem and allude to Canada’s rugged landscape, with its many mountain ranges and valleys. Instead of the jewels on the rim, there is a wavy band of blue, symbolizing the country’s many lakes and rivers, as well as its three ocean borders. This blue band, and the water it represents, emphasize the importance of the environment to Canadians, as well as Indigenous teachings that water is the lifeblood of the land.” While some users commented positively under a Twitter post announcing the redesign, others drew a connection between the use of the snowflake and a slang term for an overly sensitive person. “It’s official. A country of snowflakes,” one post reads . “Lol a waste of taxpayer dollars when we have a whole poverty and housing issue in Canada,” wrote another. The Canada Coat of Arms and other official insignia will be updated gradually over the coming years, states the Governor General’s website. “Existing versions of the emblems will remain valid and in use until they require replacement.” Canada unveils new crown with snowflake and maple leaves instead of religious symbols (msn.com) John Ivison: Federal government strips religious symbols from crown adorning Royal Coat of Arms Letters — Thoughts on the 'Trudeau Crown': We are not a 'snowflake' nation Wow! What a ridiculous piece of garbage.

Wow! You just revealed your dirty little secret. You just admitted you have no basis for your morality. You confirmed what the Bible says. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? " Jeremiah 17:9 King James Bible You clearly judged yourself and it is not a good look.

That is true, but what is your basis of morality?

No, they couldn't be educated on reserves. Nobody in their right mind would go to live on some uncivilized remote reserve where there was no services, no running water, no sewer system, no healthy places to live, no stores, etc. etc. You have to be crazy if you think anyone would go to live on a reserve to teach or work. You forgot we are talking about a time when they had no normal housing or anything on reserves. Reserves still struggle even today in many places with a lack of everything. FNs had to be brought out to the schools, either boarding schools or day schools only where there were clean accommodations for everyone to live and conveniences of life and access to what was needed. But that had to be done off the reserves which were not habitable for non-indigenous people. Simple as that.

I don't think you really know as much as you claim. The bottom line is Capitalism means free enterprise and it has proven far better than Communism. I have heard how it worked in the former Soviet Union. The telephone system was run by the Soviet government. The result was the telephone system was very antiquated and decades behind the rest of the world. When a small town somewhere in the USSR needed some parts to keep their equipment working, they had to wait ages for the parts to arrive because of the Communist system bureaucracy. That's what happens when government runs private enterprise or tries to provide the service that companies should be providing. You trust government, but we see how that works in many ways now in Canada. Vast shortage of housing because of governmen t red tape, fees, taxes, regulations and controlling and interference in everything. Vast numbers of immigrants so there is not enough housing for everyone. Carbon taxes to lower everyone's standard of living. Health care failing because of the socialized system or government control. You can't have it both ways. Either government runs it and does a bad job or private enterprise runs it and does much better. You can't provide high speed internet to every remote village without vast costs for infrastructure. That doesn't make sense to provide service for 50 or 100 people who are sitting on their butts unemployed in some reserve either. They should get out, get educated and get a job like everyone else instead of sitting on their butts demanding high speed internet.

We are not talking about putting people in a barbaric aboriginal culture. We are talking about the fact the aboriginal kids needed to be educated to function in a civilized Canadian society. Is that too much to ask or do? Would you rather leave them uneducated, unemployed and starving on some reserves? Doesn't sound too bright.

FNs had to change with colonization or starve. There was no other choice. They did not understand or agree to working in a day jobs for eight hours a day. So the question was who was going to support them? There was no welfare system or social services in those days. You either worked or starved or begged.

Every kid today is required to go to school to get a basic education. FNs old culture was entirely different. They did not believe in working an eight hour day or going to work on a schedule for five days a week. Their society let the women do most of the day to day chores in the villages and raise the kids, while the men did the hunting and gathering wild foods, game, and fish. But they only did that at certain times. They did not work like white men had to. How do you think they could survive in the new colonized world without a basic education and changing their work culture to a white man's work culture which meant going to work on a schedule every day five or six days a week? They had to learn to be able to work in jobs for other employers like logging, construction, etc. There was no other way to change their thinking except through going to school. They had to be required to attend schools in order to learn to live in society. They need to learn to read, write, and some other subjects in order to function in society. The old life of hunting and gathering had basically ended and there was no choice. The way they lived and their thinking would not support them so how do you think they could live without a basic education and working in society. It is nonsense to say the government was trying to destroy their culture. The FN culture was finished and they could not make a living on that in the new colonized world. That is just the way the world changes. It has always changed and people have always had to adapt to the changes. Secondly, it is ridiculous to say people living today must pay compensation for things that happened in the past that effected FNs lives. That is just how the world changes. You sound like you have no idea about history and how the world works. How do you think they could have lived without a basic education in white man's world?

What are you saying? Do you want a Communist tv system? What are saying here? I don't think anything like that ever happened. You sound like you're making a lot of stuff up. This sound like fiction. Why would government give money out like that? No, I think the telephone company, at least in B.C. has always owned the telephone lines and cables. It did not need to buy any cable internet from any other company. The telephone company provides service to areas that have enough population. How can the phone company provide high speed internet to remote villages when it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run cables into remote areas and build infrastructure? That has always been the problem. Why would you want to pay for a handful of people in some remote village to have high speed internet? But you will be paying if the lefties and NDP have their way. They would spend billions of dollars to build infrastructure to provide high speed internet to every remote FN village with a handful of people. Capitalism is the best system in the world. It is what made western countries prosperous. Just look at what people in the west own compared with the rest of the world. Communism never worked and never will. Communism goes against human nature because it rewards laziness and takes from those that work hard to innovate and produce something.

If they cut off Fox News, Fox might be able to challenge it in court as a violation of fundamental freedoms.