Judge Cites Charter Preamble - Supremacy of God Recognized- Atheists - 0 - Religion

[Downhome_Woman]

Judge Cites Charter Preamble - Supremacy of God Recognized- Atheists - 0 - Religion -Won
-Pun intended.

God’s place in Charter challenged | Holy Post | National Post

When a judge last month ruled that a Catholic high school in Montreal could choose its own religious curriculum, in defiance of an order by the Quebec government, he wrote that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically referred to “the supremacy of God” in its preamble. Now, in the ruling’s aftermath, some are wondering whether that language is out of place in a society that has grown increasingly secular.

“From an atheist’s perspective, what happens to those who don’t believe God exists?” asks Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Canada in Toronto.


“If God needs to be defended [by a court], then does God need to be defended by those of us who don’t believe in God?”

The phrase was cited by Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré in June, as he ruled that Loyola High School, a Jesuit private school, did not have to use the provincial religion curriculum and could teach ethics and religion from a Roman Catholic point of view. He called Quebec’s demand on the high school “totalitarian,” using the preamble to the Charter to make his case.

“Canadian democratic society,” the judge wrote, “is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law — both of which benefit from constitutional protection.”

I took a good long look at what the judge said - and then headed for the dictionary.
The definition of supremacy? "Supreme power or authority"
The definition of primacy? "The state of being first or foremost."
Well, as they say in the deep south, Shut Mah mouth. When you get right down to the brass tacks of it, aren't those two definitions pretty much the same? and hasn't that judge pretty much weasel worded himself out of a dilema?
Look - I don't want religion anywhere near schools - unless it's to teach comparetivve religion. as far as i'm concerned, beliefs should be taught at home and at the place of worship - no where else. It may have been Christians who settled this land at first, but if it hadn't been for the First Nations? They would have never survived - and the First Nations peoples weren't Christian. The railroads that bound the country together? Built by people who worshiped Confucious and the Buddha, for the most part.
Look - there's evidence to show that the first European to set foot in North America was an Irish Christian Abbot - and not the Roman Catholic kind either - the next were the Roman Catholics - but there were also Protestants and Jews in those early batches of settlers as well. Later? Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists - they all contributed to this country. does it make sense to put one religion as supreme - just because their followers were here first?
Thomas Jefferson believed that religion had no place when it came to the running of a country.Heck - even Jesus said, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's. Now, to all the Christians who believe that we should have God inserted into the political system of this country - well if your founder didn't think so, then who the heck are you to dispute it?

 

[Machjo]

Machjo

The preamble states - Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Nowhere does it state that one is above the other - nor less than the other - It is clear that the preamble means that Canada was founded upon these principles and that is the Judeo -Christian belief system as well as the rule of law based upon our European - British/French history including the Magna Carta, and more such as English Common Law, the Napoleonic Code. No more - No less - No legal document that is as complex as this or the as in the US is crystal clear - That is why we have a SCOC and also a Not Withstanding Clause.


Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me one Canadian legal document that defines the word 'God' specifically according to a Christian interpretation.

By the way, Judeo-christian doesn't make sense in this case since according to Jews, Jesus' words are not the word of God.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Show me one Canadian legal document that defines the word 'God' specifically according to a Christian interpretation.

By the way, Judeo-christian doesn't make sense in this case since according to Jews, Jesus' words are not the word of God.

That really depends upon when a document was written. I don't think anybody seriously doubts that the God in Bill of Rights in USA refers to the God in the Bible.

But Charter of Rights was formulated in modern times, the ideas of pluralism, religious tolerance were taking hold at that time. So it is highly likely that the God of the Charter is simply an undefined entity, and not the God of Bible. Perhaps another way in which the Charter is superior to the Bill of Rights.

 

[CDNBear]

Show me one Canadian legal document that defines the word 'God' specifically according to a Christian interpretation.

How about the fact that in a court of law, you were required to swear oath upon a King James Bible.

Perhaps another way in which the Charter is superior to the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps another way for you to get a dig in, irrespective of the facts.

 

[Goober]

That really depends upon when a document was written. I don't think anybody seriously doubts that the God in Bill of Rights in USA refers to the God in the Bible.

But Charter of Rights was formulated in modern times, the ideas of pluralism, religious tolerance were taking hold at that time. So it is highly likely that the God of the Charter is simply an undefined entity, and not the God of Bible. Perhaps another way in which the Charter is superior to the Bill of Rights.

Then why did they not use a generic term as the US did " Creator"

Show me one Canadian legal document that defines the word 'God' specifically according to a Christian interpretation.

By the way, Judeo-christian doesn't make sense in this case since according to Jews, Jesus' words are not the word of God.

But Christan's and Jews both use the Old Testament do they not.

 

[AnnaG]

Judge Cites Charter Preamble - Supremacy of God Recognized- Atheists - 0 - Religion -Won
-Pun intended.

God’s place in Charter challenged | Holy Post | National Post

When a judge last month ruled that a Catholic high school in Montreal could choose its own religious curriculum, in defiance of an order by the Quebec government, he wrote that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically referred to “the supremacy of God” in its preamble. Now, in the ruling’s aftermath, some are wondering whether that language is out of place in a society that has grown increasingly secular.

“From an atheist’s perspective, what happens to those who don’t believe God exists?” asks Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Canada in Toronto.


“If God needs to be defended [by a court], then does God need to be defended by those of us who don’t believe in God?”

The phrase was cited by Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré in June, as he ruled that Loyola High School, a Jesuit private school, did not have to use the provincial religion curriculum and could teach ethics and religion from a Roman Catholic point of view. He called Quebec’s demand on the high school “totalitarian,” using the preamble to the Charter to make his case.

“Canadian democratic society,” the judge wrote, “is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law — both of which benefit from constitutional protection.”

Religions should be kept separate from government. Period. Secularists can also be just as principled without including religious beliefs as with them.
You'd like to see an ugly picture? Iran under the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. Just read some of the garbage the guy wrote and then ask again if religion and government should mix.

 

[Goober]

Religions should be kept separate from government. Period. Secularists can also be just as principled without including religious beliefs as with them.
You'd like to see an ugly picture? Iran under the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. Just read some of the garbage the guy wrote and then ask again if religion and government should mix.

Yes they should be kept apart - The point is what the Charter states are the principles upon which we as a Country were founded.

You can see that in Western Democracies - You can trace many laws to religious beliefs -
Should Religions be discussed in schools used - Should it be free and open - Yes - Tolerance and understanding coming from knowledge - Hate derives itself from ignorance and unfounded or baseless fears at times.

 

[AnnaG]

Yes they should be kept apart - The point is what the Charter states are the principles upon which we as a Country were founded.

You can see that in Western Democracies - You can trace many laws to religious beliefs -
Should Religions be discussed in schools used - Should it be free and open - Yes - Tolerance and understanding coming from knowledge - Hate derives itself from ignorance and unfounded or baseless fears at times.

Personally, I don't think it matters where principles come from as long as they are good ones and people stick to them. And I am pretty sure that decent principles were around for a lot longer than the Bible has been around.
Mentioning where Canadian principles came from should be left in the history books and what's in the CoRaF should not be used as leverage for religious people.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then why did they not use a generic term as the US did " Creator"

But Christan's and Jews both use the Old Testament do they not.

Creator, God what is the difference? You are arguing about semantics. When they said creator in the bill of Rights, they probably meant creator in Biblical sense. In those days it was unthinkable (at least in North America) that there could be any other God besides the god of the Bible. So very likely they meant the God of the Bible.

 

[Goober]

Creator, God what is the difference? You are arguing about semantics. When they said creator in the bill of Rights, they probably meant creator in Biblical sense. In those days it was unthinkable (at least in North America) that there could be any other God besides the god of the Bible. So very likely they meant the God of the Bible.

A lot of brilliant men crafted and wrote the Declaration and the Constitution - It is just as likely that they decided to used Creator as all inclusive as they were no doubt aware of other religions and were thinking of the future of the Country. Only way to verify this would be historical writings during and after the fact by the writers of this document.

That really depends upon when a document was written. I don't think anybody seriously doubts that the God in Bill of Rights in USA refers to the God in the Bible.

But Charter of Rights was formulated in modern times, the ideas of pluralism, religious tolerance were taking hold at that time. So it is highly likely that the God of the Charter is simply an undefined entity, and not the God of Bible. Perhaps another way in which the Charter is superior to the Bill of Rights.

Is God mentioned in the US Bill of Rights - I understood that it was the word Creator used in the Declaration of Independence - Not in the Constitution?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A lot of brilliant men crafted and wrote the Declaration and the Constitution - It is just as likely that they decided to used Creator as all inclusive as they were no doubt aware of other religions and were thinking of the future of the Country. Only way to verify this would be historical writings during and after the fact by the writers of this document.

Is God mentioned in the US Bill of Rights - I understood that it was the word Creator used in the Declaration of Independence - Not in the Constitution?

God (or creator) is mentioned in the preamble to the Bill of Rights or to the Constitution, I am not sure which.

And if you look at subsequent writings, it is clear that Christian God was meant. I think one Supreme Court Chief Justice openly proclaimed that USA is a Christian country (this was not long after independence).

 

[Bar Sinister]

That's nonsense. It's embarrassing to have laws that are so vague and ambiguous. In a democracy, we need for all laws to be clear and transparent to the average-educated Canadian. If it isn't, it's a travesty. That passage ought to be eliminated, replaced, or at least officially explained via some amendment, and pronto.

If the government and the courts cannot even figure out what that passage means, then why did the government include it?

Maybe 5P could enlighten us on that? Was it intended to be poetic, to give the document some je ne sais quoi?

I'm not sure what you mean by nonsense. Quebec has used the opting out provision of the Charter on numerous occasions.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

Creator, God what is the difference? You are arguing about semantics. When they said creator in the bill of Rights, they probably meant creator in Biblical sense. In those days it was unthinkable (at least in North America) that there could be any other God besides the god of the Bible. So very likely they meant the God of the Bible.

It's a BIG difference. you don't get it do you? You look at that time when the US Constitution was framed and you seem to assume it was the same as it is today. Well it wasn't
You went to Church, you used the word GOD - you did NOT use the word CREATOR - you just didn't. the framers of the constitution did because they were, for the most part, Deists. They believed in a creator who pretty much didn't concern itself with humankind.
For them to use the word 'creator' was pretty novel.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. He didn't believe that the Church should have any part in the running of the state. His words? "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable".
this is what the Congress changed it to,:All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights".
the founders of the American constitution were very aware of the issues of God and politics and they very much wanted to keep them apart.

 

[Goober]

It's a BIG difference. you don't get it do you? You look at that time when the US Constitution was framed and you seem to assume it was the same as it is today. Well it wasn't
You went to Church, you used the word GOD - you did NOT use the word CREATOR - you just didn't. the framers of the constitution did because they were, for the most part, Deists. They believed in a creator who pretty much didn't concern itself with humankind.
For them to use the word 'creator' was pretty novel.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. He didn't believe that the Church should have any part in the running of the state. His words? "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable".
this is what the Congress changed it to,:All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights".
the founders of the American constitution were very aware of the issues of God and politics and they very much wanted to keep them apart.

DWH
I would credit the crafters of this document with foresight that many do not including SJP. Use of the term Creator was as you state not used is correct - The crafters of this document would be well aware of the religious strife from the formation of the Anglican Church - The English Civil War as to who had power - the King or Parliament - The Cromwell's laws -the Reformation that occurred in Europe - Protestant / Catholic Wars

The Eighty Years War that directly led to the Independence of Holland /Netherlands from Spain -


Also a Treaty signed by the US in 1797 states that the US was not founded on the Christian Religion

Also trying to compare the US Constitution to the Charter is like comparing a horse & buggy to a motor vehicle-


Lastly - How many people in our Govt have the foresight that the Founders & Crafters of the US Constitution had - It is an amazing document that many belittle because of politics, Anti US Bias -

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

[petros]

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Well that has all changed now hasn't it?

 

[Goober]

Well that has all changed now hasn't it?

The Politics in the US is beyond ignorance and both Repubs and Dems have to share the blame equally - Religious Right in the US is not as strong as it was even 8 years ago -

While we in Canada live with a PM - regardless of Party who with a Majority can act as a Dictator - and the little lemmings (MP's) trot along like good little puppies -