Christians VS Democracy??

[I think not]

Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??

So what powers does the GG have over the PM?

There are a few exceptions where they can refuse the advise or dislution of government (of which I don't know) but the last time the GG didn't act on the advice of the PM was in the 20's.

"the Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". The government acts in her name.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??

So what powers does the GG have over the PM?

There are a few exceptions where they can refuse the advise or dislution of government (of which I don't know) but the last time the GG didn't act on the advice of the PM was in the 20's.

"the Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". The government acts in her name.

The Queen does not rule through the GG, acting in her name is tradition. While you're googling, try Constitutional Monarchy Canada. The Queen has no say in our government and what we do.

 

[Said1]

IThat's basically what I just said? To my knowledge, there isn't an establishment clause or law. This may be an unwritten convention, which is in fact part of the constitution. Try googling that.

Easy slugger, wheres that catwoman outfit of yours (avatar)

I've tried everything, I usually don't ask for help when doing research unless I have exhausted all avenues.

Maybe Karlin can help? Yo? Karlin? *whistles*

I'm good. I thought it may have been unclear. I was serious though, try googling unwritten conventions of our constitution, you might find something there.

I've checked Legislative Acts and unwritten conventions, I know your Constitution is not contained within a single document like ours is. Well don't just sit there!! Help me find it!! Sheesh.

What does the Magna Carta say about religion?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??

So what powers does the GG have over the PM?

There are a few exceptions where they can refuse the advise or dislution of government (of which I don't know) but the last time the GG didn't act on the advice of the PM was in the 20's.

"the Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". The government acts in her name.

The Queen does not rule through the GG, acting in her name is tradition. While you're googling, try Constitutional Monarchy Canada. The Queen has no say in our government and what we do.

For all practical purposes you are entirely correct. From a legal point of of view, you are not correct. Anyway, I can care less about the Queen (Jay will kill me for this), and lets not stray off topic, I am very interested in this law of church state separation in Canada.

 

[Said1]

So what powers does the GG have over the PM?

There are a few exceptions where they can refuse the advise or dislution of government (of which I don't know) but the last time the GG didn't act on the advice of the PM was in the 20's.

"the Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". The government acts in her name.

The Queen does not rule through the GG, acting in her name is tradition. While you're googling, try Constitutional Monarchy Canada. The Queen has no say in our government and what we do.

For all practical purposes you are entirely correct. From a legal point of of view, you are not correct. Anyway, I can care less about the Queen (Jay will kill me for this), and lets not stray off topic, I am very interested in this law of church state separation in Canada.

Legal stand point, what are you talking about?? The Queen is a figure head, nothing more. How much authority over the state does she have in the UK?

As for church and state, this is the best I could come up with, showing there is nothing really preventing the state from meddling in the church's affairs - not that would do that or anything.

Like most countries, Canada takes its own view on the proper relationship between church and state. There is no established church, however religious groups can qualify for tax-exemption. The amount of funding religious schools receive varies from province to province. In many provinces religious schools are government funded in the same way other independent schools are. In most parts of Canada there is a Catholic education system alongside the secular 'public' education system. They are run on Catholic principles and include religious activities and instruction as a matter of course. They are not exclusively attended by practicing Catholics; in fact many non-Catholics (and non-Christians) prefer these schools for either the quality of education or the opportunity to be educated in an environment where morality and spirituality are not excluded.

Again like most countries, the specific form of separation unique to the US does not apply here. There is no restriction on government funding of 'faith-based' activities. Religious activity in schools is not excluded constitutionally (though in public schools it is usually not undertaken).

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is entrenched in the Constitution, states in the preamble that Canada "is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." [3]. Freedom of religion as also guaranteed. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] (1 S.C.R. 295) ruled that a 1906 statute that required most places to be closed on Sunday did not have a legitimate purpose in a "free and democratic society", and was an unconstitutional attempt to establish a religious-based closing law (see Blue law.)

From our favorite, Wikipedia.


Link

 

[Jay]

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/religion/religioe.html#PartA

This might help.


"The adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 provided a constitutional basis for seeking greater legal recognition and protection of a broad range of rights, among them the right of freedom of conscience and religion. The entrenchment of this right set in motion a process of modification of laws and regulations that had been made prior to 1982.

As part of this process of modification, on September 23, l988, in response to a court challenge, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down subsection 28(1) of Regulation 262, which had allowed public schools to open or close the school day with religious exercises that gave primacy to a particular faith (Footnote 3). In response to another legal challenge brought by a group of parents in Elgin County, on January 30, 1990, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down subsection 28(4) of Regulation 262, which concerned the teaching of religion in the public elementary schools (Footnote 4). The court held subsection 28(4) to be invalid in public schools because it permitted the teaching of a single religious tradition as if it were the exclusive means through which to develop moral thinking and behaviour. The court also ruled, however, that education designed to teach about religion and to foster moral values, without indoctrination in a particular religious faith, would not contravene the charter."

 

[I think not]

Forget the dam Queen! Sheesh. You answered my question, so now I can answer Karlins. Thanks.

 

[Jay]

Just so we don't forget.

 

[Said1]

RE: Christians VS Democra

Oh yes, the facist regime.

 

[Jay]

She looks simply marvelous don't you think?

 

[Said1]

RE: Christians VS Democra

Devine. Regal even. *falls on floor larfing*

 

[Jay]

 

[Said1]

RE: Christians VS Democra

BTW, ITN. What was Karlin's question. Perhaps I could hep you oot?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??

She looks simply marvelous don't you think?

If you think so :lol:

 

[I think not]

Will America declare itself to be "A Christian nation" , constitutionally?

No, because it will directly contradict the Establishment clause

Canada has allready declared separation of church and state and made it law

No you haven't, and I cannot find evidence of this claim anywhere. And I have been searching for a few hours, unless my research sucks (and it may) in this case. If you can provide a link, I will certainly retract this statement.

so the christians won't be declaring Canada "a christian nation" anytime soon.

They don't have to, they can lay claims to the opening statement of your Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

The USA has some small notions of separation of C and S, but it is being rejected by some states and juritictions where rabid christianty is evident.

The Establishment clause in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is not a "small" notion. It speaks volumes and its intent is cleraly defined.

I happened to see one of those TV Preacher personalities today, he was blasting us with a message that said over and over "We ARE a Christian Nation!!". He went on to say "I talked to the Cree Reservation yesterday, and they declared themselves to be 'A christian Nation". He mentioned a few foreign nations that have made the same proclamation.

It's called freedom of speech, they can say whatever they want, even when it offends someone or group.

 

[pastafarian]

I don't believe there is such a concept as "separation of church and state" up here because, unlike you lot down South, it goes without saying for us .

That being said, the Queen is the Head of the Church of England, which believe (as Anglicans) comprise about 7% of the population--they lost me in 1978-- trailing Roman Catholics (about 40%), United Church (about 9%) and people who report "no religion" (about 17%).

Unlike in the US, overtly religious politicians don't do very well here. Google "Stockwell Day" for details (tho' it coulda been that Jet-ski photo-op). The "dinosaurs walked with humans" stuff didn't help him much .

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Will America declare itself to be "A Christian nation" , constitutionally?

No, because it will directly contradict the Establishment clause

Canada has allready declared separation of church and state and made it law

No you haven't, and I cannot find evidence of this claim anywhere. And I have been searching for a few hours, unless my research sucks (and it may) in this case. If you can provide a link, I will certainly retract this statement.

so the christians won't be declaring Canada "a christian nation" anytime soon.

They don't have to, they can lay claims to the opening statement of your Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

The USA has some small notions of separation of C and S, but it is being rejected by some states and juritictions where rabid christianty is evident.

The Establishment clause in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is not a "small" notion. It speaks volumes and its intent is cleraly defined.

I happened to see one of those TV Preacher personalities today, he was blasting us with a message that said over and over "We ARE a Christian Nation!!". He went on to say "I talked to the Cree Reservation yesterday, and they declared themselves to be 'A christian Nation". He mentioned a few foreign nations that have made the same proclamation.

It's called freedom of speech, they can say whatever they want, even when it offends someone or group.

freedom of speech?? Maybe for the "select" and the "religious" types .....particularly when they hit the airwaves. This "freedom" is curtailed if anyone opposes them religious types .....as then they haul out their heavy artilary.( as in devils, hell, and gosh knows what kind of other monsters that are used to keep people under control.) In US society is it bad form to condemn. criticize any religious group or nut case. Just as it appears to be "bad form" to criticize their leader , even if he is the worst leader the US has seen in history. (or one of them)... "worst" defined .....unethical, immoral, hypocritical, and a warmonger to boot.====but hey......he claims to be "religious" / or "Christian.". ( talk about giving Christianity a bad name)

 

[no1important]

unethical, immoral, hypocritical, and a warmonger to boot.

"Amen" to that. :twisted:

It is amazing though when they have elections and the newcasts dissect on how each race, miniority group, religious affiliation voted. Totally insane.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

unethical, immoral, hypocritical, and a warmonger to boot.

"Amen" to that. :twisted:

It is amazing though when they have elections and the newcasts dissect on how each race, miniority group, religious affiliation voted. Totally insane.

ain't that the truth?? Their analysts. analyse the analysis of other analysts.......until they beat the topic to death and then some.

( mind you.......none of this crap is on in YT house. :wink: I swear this is how them americans get brainwashed. Repeating, and repeating the same story from as many talking heads as possible........and they all have to get into the mix..------ it becomes like a mantra..;-)

 

[I think not]

freedom of speech?? Maybe for the "select" and the "religious" types .....particularly when they hit the airwaves. This "freedom" is curtailed if anyone opposes them religious types .....as then they haul out their heavy artilary.( as in devils, hell, and gosh knows what kind of other monsters that are used to keep people under control.) In US society is it bad form to condemn. criticize any religious group or nut case. Just as it appears to be "bad form" to criticize their leader , even if he is the worst leader the US has seen in history. (or one of them)... "worst" defined .....unethical, immoral, hypocritical, and a warmonger to boot.====but hey......he claims to be "religious" / or "Christian.". ( talk about giving Christianity a bad name)

Yes OB, which part of freedom of speech didn't you get? Nobody curtails the criticism, which bubble do you live in? Great rant btw. :lol: