Preamble to Charter of Rights....

[Scott Mayers]

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

THE Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God,

What does this mean and why is this statement there?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

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

 

 

What does this mean and why is this statement there?

I think it's to inspire servility to authority by reminding us how low we are - keeps us in our place with respect to our betters.

Edited December 27, 2019 by eyeball

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think it's to inspire servility to authority by reminding us how low we are - keeps us in our place with respect to our betters.

I just sent Justin Trudeau this question (by email) as I am interested to see what he might have to say about it. Given it is up front as a preamble, it CONDITIONS anything that follows to be subject to whom "we" stands for. I added the point that I do NOT acknowledge the "supremacy of God" and thus want to determine if I am considered an official Canadian. I then asked if I am considered, "aboriginal" here and if not, wheter I am "aboriginal" to any place on Earth or if I am an 'alien'. 

I notice that if this preamble exists, it doesn't matter what anything within it asserts about those who lack religious beliefs believe regardless of any claims about our 'freedoms'. I think we need to seriously look at this condition if any of us who lack any religious status can be realistically challenge anything beyond it.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I notice that if this preamble exists, it doesn't matter what anything within it asserts about those who lack religious beliefs believe regardless of any claims about our 'freedoms'.

OTOH God's supreme representative on Earth apparently just granted everyone a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free-Card because God still loves us no matter how bad we've been.

Sounds like we're free to do anything we like.  Who am I to argue with the Supremacy of God?

[Scott Mayers]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

OTOH God's supreme representative on Earth apparently just granted everyone a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free-Card because God still loves us no matter how bad we've been.

Sounds like we're free to do anything we like.  Who am I to argue with the Supremacy of God?

I believe this needs to be addressed precisely because of this. If it simply formalizes how a people's government is operated, then anything goes on this condition. It undoes anything that follows outside of a fraudulent means to manipulate the 'common' citizen into thinking we have democratic freedoms. 

We need to address this or it is futile to pretend any ideas matter on this forum outside of voicing useless opinions.

 

Edit additional point: If our opinions are voiced when they cannot actually have any affect for us personally; they only serve to INFORM those IN POWER who others are. Then such provision to speak only acts against those who speak with opinions against the present state.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Scott Mayers

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

I just sent Justin Trudeau this question (by email) as I am interested to see what he might have to say about it. Given it is up front as a preamble, it CONDITIONS anything that follows to be subject to whom 'we' stands for. I added the point that I DO NOT acknowledge the 'supremacy of God' and thus want to determine if I am considered an official Canadian. I then asked if I am considered, 'aboriginal' here and if not, whether I am 'aboriginal' to any place on Earth or if I am an 'alien'. 

Do you expect a coherent response from Trudeau?  Your dilemma is obviously caused by global warming . . . . 

[Cannucklehead]

Like it or not, some ancient laws come from religion (see the 10 commandments) though yes times are different today.

Do unto others and all that....I think you are reading too much into this.  

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

Like it or not, some ancient laws come from religion (see the 10 commandments) though yes times are different today.

Do unto others and all that....I think you are reading too much into this.  

How do you know that the "10 commandments" were not due to a secular society's negotiated settlements about what ideas are and should be commonly upheld? ..and that religion is just the devolution of what was 'secular' to be distorted through time? 

Excusing some state of order as due to something religious is dangerous because it has no means to prove nor disprove what 'should be' and permits those in power of authority to justify any dictated action as justified in the name of some 'god'.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Scott Mayers

[Queenmandy85]

Getting the Constitution Act passed was a difficult, complex issue. The religious constituancy insisted on this and there was little opposition due to the fact that those who would have objected were a bunch of republican wing-nuts who just love to argue to hear the sound of their own voices and like to show the rest of us how smart they are. 

We are not a theocracy like the US but "Canadian Nation is founded upon principles" refers to the conditions that existed in 1867 when religion was very important. 

Spoiler Alert: Nobody cares what we say on this forum or any other forum. If you want to make a difference, get candidates who agree with you to run in the next election. Be aware that amending the Constitution is a snake pit and only an idiot would try and do it.

 

[Cannucklehead]

2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

How do you know that the "10 commandments" were not due to a secular society's negotiated settlements about what ideas are and should be commonly upheld? ..and that religion is just the devolution of what was 'secular' to be distorted through time? 

Excusing some state of order as due to something religious is dangerous because it has no means to prove nor disprove what 'should be' and permits those in power of authority to justify any dictated action as justified in the name of some 'god'.

Ok let's remove thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal from our charter.  

Could be fun.  

[Queenmandy85]

I have to ask Scott, why do you care? Are you ever going to have your rights stripped away because of this...seriously? Is your little objection worth going through Meech again?

Edited December 27, 2019 by Queenmandy85
Punctuation

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Like it or not, some ancient laws come from religion

The preamble about recognizing God's supremacy isn't a law its about cultivating an attitude...in this case an attitude of subserviance. 

[Cannucklehead]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The preamble about recognizing God's supremacy isn't a law its about cultivating an attitude...in this case an attitude of subserviance. 

Only a loon would claim to be God's equal.  If we went down the atheist path then we have to change our anthem as well.  

Again.  

[Queenmandy85]

A degree of subservience has been part of Canada for almost four centuries. In theory, we are a Monarchy. Our Head of State is, in theory, annointed by God and is Head of the Christian Church (Anglican). In theory, she is the personifacation of the nation. If one is unable to live with that, one could always move to another country which is more in line with one's beliefs. For a non-religious person, Red China would be the obvious choice.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

Only a loon would claim to be God's equal.  If we went down the atheist path then we have to change our anthem as well.  

Again.  

Only a loon would claim there's a God.

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only a loon would claim there's a God.

I don't think I am as smart as you. 

[Scott Mayers]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Getting the Constitution Act passed was a difficult, complex issue. The religious constituancy insisted on this and there was little opposition due to the fact that those who would have objected were a bunch of republican wing-nuts who just love to argue to hear the sound of their own voices and like to show the rest of us how smart they are. 

We are not a theocracy like the US but "Canadian Nation is founded upon principles" refers to the conditions that existed in 1867 when religion was very important. 

Spoiler Alert: Nobody cares what we say on this forum or any other forum. If you want to make a difference, get candidates who agree with you to run in the next election. Be aware that amending the Constitution is a snake pit and only an idiot would try and do it.

 

Difficult or not, the constitution wasn't created BY the people's direct consent and would require it to be democratically agreed upon. To be fair it would require direct vote by each and every person AND rechecked upon every generation's agreeing to it. We are born FORCED to accept it. The U.S. is definitely NOT a theocracy. WE are! We lack the American's First Amendment which assures the system is secular. 

P.S. We are a "republic" in the worst part of its problems: representative governments are not exactly 'democratic' because we only vote for some party's representative for the minute it takes to vote and they do not serve require serving their constituency after they get in power. In the U.S. time limits are set, people get to actually vote on particular significant issues AND can even create bills as a right of the people to directly petition. 

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Getting the Constitution Act passed was a difficult, complex issue. The religious constituancy insisted on this and there was little opposition due to the fact that those who would have objected were a bunch of republican wing-nuts who just love to argue to hear the sound of their own voices and like to show the rest of us how smart they are. 

We are not a theocracy like the US but "Canadian Nation is founded upon principles" refers to the conditions that existed in 1867 when religion was very important. 

Spoiler Alert: Nobody cares what we say on this forum or any other forum. If you want to make a difference, get candidates who agree with you to run in the next election. Be aware that amending the Constitution is a snake pit and only an idiot would try and do it.

 

The Charter of Rights is like our Canadian Constitution? Both are a joke today. Maybe they meant well in their beginning, but they both have pretty much become a bunch of useless words written on a bunch of useless and worthless paper. They both can be interpreted in so many ways to suit whomever is in power at the time. The Canadian government and Canada itself has become a bastion for political cheats, thieves and liars who have no love for Canada. It's all about the money and the power now, baby. Canada died in 1980 when old man Trudeau came to town. 

Indeed, no one gives a shit about anything said here. Why? Because most members here appear to only give a crap about themselves. They have become just like their Canadian political master leaders today? It's all about me-me-me. Deplorable people those Canadians have become. 

[Scott Mayers]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I have to ask Scott, why do you care? Are you ever going to have your rights stripped away because of this...seriously? Is your little objection worth going through Meech again?

There are issues we can never address with this system as is. But it starts with the preable as it conditions all to accept the religious authority, the Catholic and Anglican church, the Royalty, and counters non-theists' rights by default. While it may seem trivial to some, its use will become problematic at some point given it is just this kind of pretentiousness of triviality that later creates wars. [...like,...."the bible says X ...and must be taken literal."] For a serious constitution, it cannot arbitrarily be strict on some things with literal intention but play light on other things with the verbal promise that it wouldn't really be used against us.] 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Difficult or not, the constitution wasn't created BY the people's direct consent and would require it to be democratically agreed upon. To be fair it would require direct vote by each and every person AND rechecked upon every generation's agreeing to it. We are born FORCED to accept it. The U.S. is definitely NOT a theocracy. WE are! We lack the American's First Amendment which assures the system is secular.

 

Canada is purposely not like the U.S., which violently rejected the "Crown" for direct representative government by "We The People".   Contrasts and comparisons with the Americans will never serve to define Canadian government, despite the overwhelming and consistent urge to do so.

Loyalists fled to Canada.....

 

[Scott Mayers]

5 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Ok let's remove thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal from our charter.  

Could be fun.  

Given the non-theist doesn't believe the bible nor its asserted supreme beings, to us ALL politics are actually 'secularly' creations. That most governments have utilized religion doesn't mean that we (athiests) think that the rules came from God just because the past peoples said so. 

How do you infer that killing and stealing were not normal agreements of conduct that needed some external agent to give us?

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Ok let's remove thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal from our charter.  

Could be fun.  

Let us all hope that you will become the first victim then. Let us all see the fun that you will have after you have been robbed and then murdered. Come back and let us all know about the fun that you are having, will you? Enjoy your trip to the other side. 

[Moonlight Graham]

"God" = the Queen of Canada?  Divine right of kings.  God rules us all, your majesty.

[Cannucklehead]

43 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canada is purposely not like the U.S., which violently rejected the "Crown" for direct representative government by "We The People".   Contrasts and comparisons with the Americans will never serve to define Canadian government, despite the overwhelming and consistent urge to do so.

Loyalists fled to Canada.....

 

Yeah but "in god you trust", right?  

[Cannucklehead]

36 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Given the non-theist doesn't believe the bible nor its asserted supreme beings, to us ALL politics are actually 'secularly' creations. That most governments have utilized religion doesn't mean that we (athiests) think that the rules came from God just because the past peoples said so. 

How do you infer that killing and stealing were not normal agreements of conduct that needed some external agent to give us?

See the native americans.