Preamble to Charter of Rights....

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

All this hand wringing about god being mentioned in the preamble is pretty funny. A lot of silly extrapolations about this being the source of any dysfunction in Canadian governance as well. A shout out to god is not the problem with the Constitution, Confederation is the problem.

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.

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

All this hand wringing about god being mentioned in the preamble is pretty funny.

Well there’s another way to approach it which doesn’t rely on argument but rather the primacy of culture: Canada has two main founding cultures and languages that are constitutionally protected.  That’s the deal.  I’m merely showing that even from a “post-national state” perspective (which I don’t buy into), there is a powerful argument to be made for retaining the existing preamble.  It’s an assurance of the sanctity of the person above the power of the state.  I don’t think Scott sees it, I’m guessing, because I think he’s younger and didn’t grow up learning about the horrors of the Holocaust and hearing first hand accounts from soldiers who fought for the peace and freedom we enjoy, including during the Cold War against the Soviets.  Anyway, it’s hard to change the constitution.  I don’t think changing the preamble is a worthwhile cause.  This is Canada, not China.  

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

On 12/27/2019 at 6:23 AM, Scott Mayers said:

permits those in power of authority to justify any dictated action as justified in the name of some 'god'.

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.

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

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.

Anyone who tried to use the argument that he or she is right because he or she knows what God wants would be turfed from power in short order.  

Also, an important aspect of the constitution is protection of minority rights, including the right to believe whatever you want.  It’s not all about the majority.  That’s why we have Charter protections.  

[Yzermandius19]

23 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

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.

This is Canada. Of course certain religions get special favors, that is baked into Confederation from the beginning, without it, there would be no Confederation. Canada is not America, expecting it to be America is just a recipe for disappointment.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Scott Mayers]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well there’s another way to approach it which doesn’t rely on argument but rather the primacy of culture: Canada has two main founding cultures and languages that are constitutionally protected.  That’s the deal.  I’m merely showing that even from a “post-national state” perspective (which I don’t buy into), there is a powerful argument to be made for retaining the existing preamble.  It’s an assurance of the sanctity of the person above the power of the state.  I don’t think Scott sees it, I’m guessing, because I think he’s younger and didn’t grow up learning about the horrors of the Holocaust and hearing first hand accounts from soldiers who fought for the peace and freedom we enjoy, including during the Cold War against the Soviets.  Anyway, it’s hard to change the constitution.  I don’t think changing the preamble is a worthwhile cause.  This is Canada, not China.  

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.

[Scott Mayers]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Anyone who tried to use the argument that he or she is right because he or she knows what God wants would be turfed from power in short order.  

Also, an important aspect of the constitution is protection of minority rights, including the right to believe whatever you want.  It’s not all about the majority.  That’s why we have Charter protections.  

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.

[Scott Mayers]

42 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

This is Canada. Of course certain religions get special favors, that is baked into Confederation from the beginning, without it, there would be no Confederation. Canada is not America, expecting it to be America is just a recipe for disappointment.

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

[Yzermandius19]

24 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

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

If you want it to change it, then Confederation has to end. As long as Confederation exists, it's not going change. Quebec will not stay without it's special rights and privileges, if you get rid of them, Quebec would bail. Quebec is not going to go along with your constitutional changes, and will fight tooth and nail to keep them.

So what's more important to you, Quebec remaining part of Canada, or doing away with their special rights and privileges? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

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

You can't have everything that you want. You can't expect everyone to care what you want. Your complaint here is incredibly childish.

[scribblet]

Like it or not, Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian values as was the U.S. of A.  indeed there was never any intent that Judeo-Christian values could not impact our government policy.  

If you want corroboration, just go stand in front of the PeaceTower and read the Old Testament Scriptures that are carved into the stone above the three arches, or for that matter sing the national anthem...."God keep our land glorious and free as we stand on guard for Thee".

The above-referenced verses read as follows:

1. He shall have dominion from sea to sea [to whom do you all think He is referring]
2. Without a vision the people perish
3. Give Thy King Thy Judgements and Thy Sons Thy Righteousness

The preamble of the Canadian Constitution states: "We believe in the supremacy of God". The Star of David is outlined in iron works on the PeaceTower clock.

Our Founding Fathers spoke openly and often about "God". Prayer was a part of their lives and their decision-making. I believe it was Tilley who proposed the name "Dominion of Canada" following a time of prayer in which he read the scripture "He shall have dominion". That's how it ended up as part of our traditions. That verse is also contained in the Canadian coat of arms that translates "from sea to sea.

Good luck getting the provinces to agree to any changes.

 

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

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.

In addition to the important points that Scribblet made, it’s important to recognize that our historic foundations are the very reason we can talk about the importance of respecting minority rights.  Scott, you seem fixated on the Catholic Church and Quebec, but in fact the constitutional protections are there for Protestant education as well.  If you go back to the mid-19th century just in Ontario and the time of Egerton Ryerson, most schools had religious affiliations and these reflected the beliefs of the founding peoples.  There were no aboriginal schools.  If you wanted to attend school it was the churches running them because the first educated class apart from the very wealthy who paid their own tutors were the clergy.  The first universities were ecclesiastical.  

We have moved on from the Church as the seat of knowledge.  Just don’t think this is only a Quebec thing.  In fact the US public is more religious than the Canadian public.  

For me and I think for many, preserving a sense of the spiritual in the constitution isn’t about church control or the dominance of any one religion or any religion at all.  It’s about ascribing special significance to existence beyond our mere utility as defined by the government of the day.  It’s about the sanctity of the person.  

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

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 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.

 

Quote

I already recognize nature itself as defaulted to be more powerful but it too doesn't require officially asserting. 

No, just because might can make right doesn't mean it has to.

Quote

What would nature do BEYOND people's involvement (including technology we create) matter?

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.

[WestCanMan]

On 12/26/2019 at 8:56 PM, Scott Mayers said:

The preamble to our 'rights' here begins with a preamble:

What does this mean and why is this statement there?

"THE Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God" means that our rights are based on a certain set of principles. It could say that they're founded on principles that they found on a fortune cookie and it wouldn't make a difference to what rights you have.

This is merely an acknowledgement of the source that provided the main inspiration & guidelines for the codified rights that you enjoy.

If it is offensive to people that's too bad, because it is just a statement of fact.

As an atheist myself, I find it weird that it's there, but I respect the people who gave us these rights so I'm not the least bit interested in denying them their legacy. I even appreciate the selfless manner in which they place the credit for their work elsewhere and I'll be honest - if I wrote it my name would be all over it and I'd brag about it until I made Trump look humble.

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

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.

That's not the case at all. You're completely misinterpreting it, unless there a clause that you didn't include in the OP.

That preamble doesn't say that "acknowledgement of the supremacy of god is a condition precedent to a citizen of Canada being granted the following rights...", it just says that the rights in the charter are based on religious principles. That's absolutely true because the people who wrote it said so, and no one else can pretend to know what was in their minds when they were coming up with the laws and putting pen to paper.

I don't even know how you came up with that theory because you don't seem to have a problem understanding the english language. 

My guess is that you just hate the religion and you want every acknowledgement of it stricken form the public record.

I don't think that denying our history is a good thing, even the bad parts. John A. MacDonald included. It shows that we're moving forward. If we were to pretend that we were always perfect then we'd be saying that we should never change, and that's not the case. We should just never make the changes that eyeball proposes. Or Rue. Or Argus. Or Boges. OK screw it we should never change. 

[Scott Mayers]

On 1/2/2020 at 1:57 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

If you want it to change it, then Confederation has to end. As long as Confederation exists, it's not going change. Quebec will not stay without it's special rights and privileges, if you get rid of them, Quebec would bail. Quebec is not going to go along with your constitutional changes, and will fight tooth and nail to keep them.

So what's more important to you, Quebec remaining part of Canada, or doing away with their special rights and privileges? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

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. 

 

On 1/2/2020 at 8:11 AM, scribblet said:

Like it or not, Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian values as was the U.S. of A.  indeed there was never any intent that Judeo-Christian values could not impact our government policy.  

 

If you want corroboration, just go stand in front of the PeaceTower and read the Old Testament Scriptures that are carved into the stone above the three arches, or for that matter sing the national anthem...."God keep our land glorious and free as we stand on guard for Thee".

 

The above-referenced verses read as follows:

 

1. He shall have dominion from sea to sea [to whom do you all think He is referring]
2. Without a vision the people perish
3. Give Thy King Thy Judgements and Thy Sons Thy Righteousness

 

The preamble of the Canadian Constitution states: "We believe in the supremacy of God". The Star of David is outlined in iron works on the PeaceTower clock.

 

Our Founding Fathers spoke openly and often about "God". Prayer was a part of their lives and their decision-making. I believe it was Tilley who proposed the name "Dominion of Canada" following a time of prayer in which he read the scripture "He shall have dominion". That's how it ended up as part of our traditions. That verse is also contained in the Canadian coat of arms that translates "from sea to sea.

 

 

Good luck getting the provinces to agree to any changes.

 

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.

[Scott Mayers]

On 1/2/2020 at 9:59 AM, Zeitgeist said:

In addition to the important points that Scribblet made, it’s important to recognize that our historic foundations are the very reason we can talk about the importance of respecting minority rights.  Scott, you seem fixated on the Catholic Church and Quebec, but in fact the constitutional protections are there for Protestant education as well.  If you go back to the mid-19th century just in Ontario and the time of Egerton Ryerson, most schools had religious affiliations and these reflected the beliefs of the founding peoples.  There were no aboriginal schools.  If you wanted to attend school it was the churches running them because the first educated class apart from the very wealthy who paid their own tutors were the clergy.  The first universities were ecclesiastical.  

We have moved on from the Church as the seat of knowledge.  Just don’t think this is only a Quebec thing.  In fact the US public is more religious than the Canadian public.  

For me and I think for many, preserving a sense of the spiritual in the constitution isn’t about church control or the dominance of any one religion or any religion at all.  It’s about ascribing special significance to existence beyond our mere utility as defined by the government of the day.  It’s about the sanctity of the person.  

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).

[Nefarious Banana]

19 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

 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-religious) beliefs prior to introduction of Christianity were themselves 'evil' or that they lacked any sense of 'morals'? 

You ARE speaking like an arrogant thief 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 thieving ancestors. 

You can't speak of something 'Judaeo-Christian' if you can't BE 'Judaeo-Christian' in your own hypocritical behavior.

Endless text from you on this subject.  Nothing resolved to your satisfaction.  Begs the question:  What are you going to do now?

[Scott Mayers]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

On 1/1/2020 at 11:58 PM, Scott Mayers said:

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 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.

[Scott Mayers]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

Quote

I already recognize nature itself as defaulted to be more powerful but it too doesn't require officially asserting. 

No, just because might can make right doesn't mean it has to.

Quote

What would nature do BEYOND people's involvement (including technology we create) matter?

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. 

[Scott Mayers]

6 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Endless text from you on this subject.  Nothing resolved to your satisfaction.  Begs the question:  What are you going to do now?

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. 

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's not the case at all. You're completely misinterpreting it, unless there a clause that you didn't include in the OP.

That preamble doesn't say that "acknowledgement of the supremacy of god is a condition precedent to a citizen of Canada being granted the following rights...", it just says that the rights in the charter are based on religious principles. That's absolutely true because the people who wrote it said so, and no one else can pretend to know what was in their minds when they were coming up with the laws and putting pen to paper.

I don't even know how you came up with that theory because you don't seem to have a problem understanding the english language. 

My guess is that you just hate the religion and you want every acknowledgement of it stricken form the public record.

I don't think that denying our history is a good thing, even the bad parts. John A. MacDonald included. It shows that we're moving forward. If we were to pretend that we were always perfect then we'd be saying that we should never change, and that's not the case. We should just never make the changes that eyeball proposes. Or Rue. Or Argus. Or Boges. OK screw it we should never change. 

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? 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Scott Mayers

[Yzermandius19]

If god existed, why wouldn't you want him on your side? Seems like you just don't want any religious sentiments included in preamble, because you're a militant atheist hostile to any mention of religion in any legal document.

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If god existed, why wouldn't you want him on your side? Seems like you just don't want any religious sentiments included in preamble, because you're a militant atheist hostile to any mention of religion in any legal document.

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? 

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

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.

So? Nothing wrong with that.