Nobody ever discusses "The Holly Ghost".......he's my favorite of three
Nothing about organized religion makes sense. It's deliberately written that way so you can't write Church out of your own spiritual one-ness. If we all had peace of mind, there would be no need (thus, no profit) for medicine men, witch doctors or clergy.
Cliffy in typical fashion opined:
"Most religious holidays involve spending money on gifts or candies. Is that the case with the Day of Prayer? I mean if the capitalists can't make money on it why have it?"
No, this prayer day - not a national holiday - only encourages people to pray to their respective God, be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist (yes, it IS a religion) or whatever for their fellow man, their country, their world.
Anyone who would minimize or denigrate the intention of Prayer Day, or callously declare it to be nothing more than an other money grab, needs his/her minds examined.
And in contrast to the US Constitution, Canada's begins:
"CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
It really would be must less hypocritical for Canada to just adopt the British model of a State religion rather than pretend to be non-religious.
Sure, and unemployment is a job and bald is a hair style.
"Sure, and unemployment is a job and bald is a hair style."
Sure, generation after generation of welfare recipients DO consider unemployment a job.
Also, lot of clever people make money serving vain bald people, making tupees, wigs and hair transplants.
In short, we simply cannot compare the US Constitution to the Canadian one. The Canadian one is strongly religious in nature.
The separation of Church and State in the United States was envisioned to prevent an organized Church from becoming an institutionalized branch of government. It was never meant to outlaw the State from promoting prayer, in favour of an insipid atheism, which is a spiritual belief system of its own, with an implicit political agenda.
That is a relatively new invention, concordant with the post structural ethos that has brought us such atrocities as abortion and euthenasia of the sick. It is promoted by blubbering fools like this judge.. and Christopher Hitchens.
That's right, prayer in fact bypasses Church and State and is direct communion with God. No one can be forced to pray, but no one can be prevented from doing so either.
Prohibiting the government from sponsoring a day of prayer, as we've seen them sponsor 'Pride Day' events and other abominations, is absurd. In fact it fits into the political agenda of the Church of Atheism.. which is becoming de facto, a branch of the U.S. State.
In a country as diverse as the US (and Canada) with all the various religions and ethnic groups, pledging "under god" is ludicrous. The term God has a Judeo/Christian connotation. To be inclusive as your (our) population, you would have to include all the gods of just about every religion on the planet.
God is mentioned in the preamble (I think US constitution also mentions God in the preamble), which is not as important as being included in the main body of the document.
Anyway, it would be nonsense for Canada to adopt an official religion. Which religion would that be? The United Church? They marry homosexuals in their church (used to do it even before it was legalized), how will that go down with conservative, right wing churches? Any church that is accepted as official religion will generate fierce opposition from other churches and also from other religions. It will be a big source of contention and discord. It will generate bitter, long lasting debate. I donít think we want anything like that in Canada, that is what they do in USA (continue a bitter, passionate, vitriolic debate for decades).
Besides, I am not sure that Canada can adopt an official religion without amending the constitution. If that is the case, then the proposal is dead on arrival.
I agree that the two constitutions are different in nature (I think Canadian constitution is better, especially our Charter of Rights is a much better document than the Bill of Rights).
However, I disagree with you that Canadian constitution is religious in nature. Nothing of the sort. Supreme Court will crack down on any attempts to establish an official religion, as being against the constitution. I think the clause about freedom to worship in the Charter will very likely be interpreted to mean that the government cannot pick winners and losers when it comes to religion.
So how do you explain constitutional guarantees for publicly funded separate schools for some religious communities and not others? Though that is not the government establishing a state religion, it certainly is the constitution favouring one religion over others. Seems even more religious than the UK in some respects. In the UK, they may have an official state religion, but all state-owned public schools in Britain are universally accessible. Yes the Christian Faith is given reasonable preferential treatment in their religious studies curriculum, though other religions are taught too side by side with it. In Ontario's separate school system, catholics are segregated from the rest of society. Looking at it that way, simpy having an official state religion is less intrusive than establishing a separate school system. One is mainly symbolic, the other has clear financial and administrative consequences in real life.