Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Right?
- Thread starter Citizen
- Start date
Sentiment Appreciated, Imitation Not Wanted
While I can appreciate the sentiment to what he's trying to say, I, too, find the slogan somewhat disconcerting. Even if there's no "Bush"-ness behind it, I'd rather he close with something like "Canada, for the win!" lol
While I can appreciate the sentiment to what he's trying to say, I, too, find the slogan somewhat disconcerting. Even if there's no "Bush"-ness behind it, I'd rather he close with something like "Canada, for the win!" lol
RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
How the heck is that disturbing?
Most Canadians (and that includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs... this isn't a religion vs. religion thing) believe in God.
"God bless Canada" is nice. It's nice to hear a Canadian political leader not afraid to add just a touch of his personal side into things. Now, I don't want a Stockwell Day, but Harper's light touch of religiousity/spirituality is very much welcomed, in my books.
I, for one, am tired of Americans seemingly having the market cornered on overt showings of spirituality, and patriotism. I, for one, would love to see more Canadian-flag waving here in Canada, and more "God bless Canada".
How the heck is that disturbing?
Most Canadians (and that includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs... this isn't a religion vs. religion thing) believe in God.
"God bless Canada" is nice. It's nice to hear a Canadian political leader not afraid to add just a touch of his personal side into things. Now, I don't want a Stockwell Day, but Harper's light touch of religiousity/spirituality is very much welcomed, in my books.
I, for one, am tired of Americans seemingly having the market cornered on overt showings of spirituality, and patriotism. I, for one, would love to see more Canadian-flag waving here in Canada, and more "God bless Canada".
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
Number 1, it screams pro-Bush and his fundamental religious right leanings.
2, religion and politics should never be mixed!
3, there are many atheist Canadians.
What bothered me the most when I heard that is how much Harper sounded like Bush. That's enough to scare anyone, even huge numbers of U.S. citizens.
Triple_R said:
Number 1, it screams pro-Bush and his fundamental religious right leanings.
2, religion and politics should never be mixed!
3, there are many atheist Canadians.
What bothered me the most when I heard that is how much Harper sounded like Bush. That's enough to scare anyone, even huge numbers of U.S. citizens.
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
Oh, please. :roll:
1. In America, Democrats sing "God Bless America" with as much fervor as Republicans do. Do these Democrats have "fundamental religious right" leanings? 8O
2. Since when does "God" equal "religion"? I know many non-religious people who believe in the existence of God. Stop being so stupidly afraid of belief in God!
3. And if God doesn't exist, for argument's sake, what harm does saying "God bless Canada" have? If He doesn't exist, you might as well be saying "Luke Skywalker bless Canada", or "Superman bless Canada". "God bless Canada" is utterly benign. If God exists, it can only help. If He doesn't, it'll have no negative effect.
You vehemently anti-religion types need to stop being so incredibly touchy. Grow up, with all due respect. Most religious people that I know aren't as touchy as you.
Citizen said:
Oh, please. :roll:
1. In America, Democrats sing "God Bless America" with as much fervor as Republicans do. Do these Democrats have "fundamental religious right" leanings? 8O
2. Since when does "God" equal "religion"? I know many non-religious people who believe in the existence of God. Stop being so stupidly afraid of belief in God!
3. And if God doesn't exist, for argument's sake, what harm does saying "God bless Canada" have? If He doesn't exist, you might as well be saying "Luke Skywalker bless Canada", or "Superman bless Canada". "God bless Canada" is utterly benign. If God exists, it can only help. If He doesn't, it'll have no negative effect.
You vehemently anti-religion types need to stop being so incredibly touchy. Grow up, with all due respect. Most religious people that I know aren't as touchy as you.
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
Are you suggesting the religious right in America does not support Bush over the democrats? :lol:
Now why would you assume I'd be afraid of a belief in God?
Also, why would you imply that God is not a religious icon/being?
What of the Canadians who don't believe in God? The atheists and agnostics? Should they be forced to listen to any Canadian government speak of God?
Wow, you religious types sure are quick to judge. Wrongly, I might add.
You've no clue as to whether I'm anti-religion or not. You must acknowledge, however, that all Canadians aren't religious!
Triple_R said:
Are you suggesting the religious right in America does not support Bush over the democrats? :lol:
Now why would you assume I'd be afraid of a belief in God?
Also, why would you imply that God is not a religious icon/being?
What of the Canadians who don't believe in God? The atheists and agnostics? Should they be forced to listen to any Canadian government speak of God?
Wow, you religious types sure are quick to judge. Wrongly, I might add.
You've no clue as to whether I'm anti-religion or not. You must acknowledge, however, that all Canadians aren't religious!
RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
Sorry Tripple R,
Mythologies, superstitions, et al do not belong in politics, period. (Socially condoned or not).
Appeals to deities are divisive and this is yet another example of why Harper is NOT suited to be the leader of Canada.
Sorry Tripple R,
Mythologies, superstitions, et al do not belong in politics, period. (Socially condoned or not).
Appeals to deities are divisive and this is yet another example of why Harper is NOT suited to be the leader of Canada.
RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
I’m with Caracal on this one as well. A person’s personal beliefs no matter how enshrined they are by a section of the populace, should not be utilized as the group he represents beliefs.
If Stephen Harper believes in what he says is fine, as long as he puts it forth as his personal belief and not as the shared value of the collective values of Canada.
Politics is about the building of the society that we live in, not the one we foresee going too.
I’m with Caracal on this one as well. A person’s personal beliefs no matter how enshrined they are by a section of the populace, should not be utilized as the group he represents beliefs.
If Stephen Harper believes in what he says is fine, as long as he puts it forth as his personal belief and not as the shared value of the collective values of Canada.
Politics is about the building of the society that we live in, not the one we foresee going too.
RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
Stephen Harper Raises Funds for Radical Right-wing Organization
January 12, 2006
liberal.ca
Ottawa – Conservative Leader Stephen Harper spoke at a large fundraising dinner in Richmond, B.C. on March 31, 2005, for a far right group that advocates against same-sex marriage and abortion, and published cartoons depicting Liberal Prime Ministers as Nazis.
The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJFVA) is a far-right-wing association that recently published a caricature on the cover of its July/August issue which portrayed Prime Minister Paul Martin as a Nazi receiving an award from Hitler for “the destruction of Canada’s foundational institution (family).” The group also published a similar illustration of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
Mr. Harper was joined at the March event by Conservative MPs Art Hanger and John Duncan. The event raised approximately $15,000, which helped CASJFVA spread their anti-gay, socially-conservative message as a third-party political advertiser.
For example, the group lobbied against the inclusion of sexual orientation under hate crimes laws by hosting a booth at the 2003 Pacific National Exhibition that featured a banner reading (in Chinese): “Protect freedom of speech. You must not support C-250 or you cannot publicly criticize child molestation, necrophilia, self-mutilation or torture, polygamy or unnatural sexual behaviour.”
The Conservative Party, and the Canadian Alliance before it, has had a long-standing relationship with CASJFVA:
Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews received an achievement award from the group and praised their efforts in the House of Commons, saying “Canadians across the country are grateful for its efforts.”
On October 16, 2005 – less than two months before this campaign began – Conservative MP Jason Kenney spoke at a fundraiser for the group, saying “Your organization is respected across Canada for its work to defend the most important institution of society: family.”
This is yet more evidence that the moderation that the Conservative Party has sought to portray to Canadians in this election is just a thin veneer.
Indeed!
Stephen Harper Raises Funds for Radical Right-wing Organization
January 12, 2006
liberal.ca
Ottawa – Conservative Leader Stephen Harper spoke at a large fundraising dinner in Richmond, B.C. on March 31, 2005, for a far right group that advocates against same-sex marriage and abortion, and published cartoons depicting Liberal Prime Ministers as Nazis.
The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJFVA) is a far-right-wing association that recently published a caricature on the cover of its July/August issue which portrayed Prime Minister Paul Martin as a Nazi receiving an award from Hitler for “the destruction of Canada’s foundational institution (family).” The group also published a similar illustration of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
Mr. Harper was joined at the March event by Conservative MPs Art Hanger and John Duncan. The event raised approximately $15,000, which helped CASJFVA spread their anti-gay, socially-conservative message as a third-party political advertiser.
For example, the group lobbied against the inclusion of sexual orientation under hate crimes laws by hosting a booth at the 2003 Pacific National Exhibition that featured a banner reading (in Chinese): “Protect freedom of speech. You must not support C-250 or you cannot publicly criticize child molestation, necrophilia, self-mutilation or torture, polygamy or unnatural sexual behaviour.”
The Conservative Party, and the Canadian Alliance before it, has had a long-standing relationship with CASJFVA:
Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews received an achievement award from the group and praised their efforts in the House of Commons, saying “Canadians across the country are grateful for its efforts.”
On October 16, 2005 – less than two months before this campaign began – Conservative MP Jason Kenney spoke at a fundraiser for the group, saying “Your organization is respected across Canada for its work to defend the most important institution of society: family.”
This is yet more evidence that the moderation that the Conservative Party has sought to portray to Canadians in this election is just a thin veneer.
Indeed!
Re: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
that religion would play a role in making for a more conservative country.
The Religious right in the USA are not masters of their own domaine. Big oil money has been funding "leaders" for generations. The same as wahhabi money in the middle east being responsible for Islamic extremism. In the USA the importance of building a religious right was to get power for people who were shut out for the most part. The old ideal of Disraeli - that if you make the little people patriotic - as he did in Britain at the end of the 19th Century - the conservative side can have voters. Enough to get elected. It was sort of a free base. Free in that by making poor Brits patriotic - they would vote against their own best interest and vote for country. And that meant empire. Which benefitted the wealthy.
The USA version of Disraeli added "Xtianity" into the mix. And has wipped up "gay this and gay that". To build a bigger base. Why they are in power.
So to say Canada will go Christian under Harper is untrue. If he follows neocon thinking down to the letter - for sure religion will be promoted. But only the wedge issues. Things like "not scapegoating people" or "meek shall inherit the earth" will go out the window.
Christianity on its own was at the forefront of anti-slavery (outside of the south - the south was baked in hate at the time). It was at the forefront of the labour movement and the woman's movement (temperance was a responce to working class women whose men finally stopped working on farms, had two cents to rub together every week for the first time in history, and spent it on beer. Once things like AA and other alcoholic treatment was available - and society had adjusted - temperance was out. But in the poverty stricken areas - a father with an alcohol problem was a killer to his family). Christians were there at the start of the labour movement against child labour laws, for unions and all. Also for a transfer of wealth in the 1930s - as the gilded age had hurt society and its growth. Again - in the civil rights movement - Christianty was there.
This is the Christianity "experts at front line work and social activists because" that the neocons are against. Because Christianity ends up working hand in hand with liberals for justice.
So - like clear skies, or whatever other bullshit line they weave. Christian movement in the USA is based on hatred of humanists and humanisty/christian legislation to mitigate the worst things in society. Read up on Tim LaHaye or Pat Robertson.
It is not christianity at all. It is a political movement. Demonstrated by the fight on abortion. For sure abortion is a tragedy - but if one hated it they woud fight with all the tools including other reproductive alternatives. But the religious right has not. And impose their woolly headed politics on places like Africa - where in rural areas - poor women often do not have a choice who they sleep with. Neither did any of us.
Christianity has made mistakes. No, no, they are not perfect. Hatred of usery in and of itself may have been responisble for the dark ages. Every wonder why as the Christian hierarchy grew the economy of Europe shut down in about AD 500? That went well.
Today's neocons would not dream of making banking illegal. They simply pick and choose the parts of the bible and fund the churches through elite and oil money. Look for that to happen in Canada. But it is not Christianity. It is a poor cousin.
that religion would play a role in making for a more conservative country.
The Religious right in the USA are not masters of their own domaine. Big oil money has been funding "leaders" for generations. The same as wahhabi money in the middle east being responsible for Islamic extremism. In the USA the importance of building a religious right was to get power for people who were shut out for the most part. The old ideal of Disraeli - that if you make the little people patriotic - as he did in Britain at the end of the 19th Century - the conservative side can have voters. Enough to get elected. It was sort of a free base. Free in that by making poor Brits patriotic - they would vote against their own best interest and vote for country. And that meant empire. Which benefitted the wealthy.
The USA version of Disraeli added "Xtianity" into the mix. And has wipped up "gay this and gay that". To build a bigger base. Why they are in power.
So to say Canada will go Christian under Harper is untrue. If he follows neocon thinking down to the letter - for sure religion will be promoted. But only the wedge issues. Things like "not scapegoating people" or "meek shall inherit the earth" will go out the window.
Christianity on its own was at the forefront of anti-slavery (outside of the south - the south was baked in hate at the time). It was at the forefront of the labour movement and the woman's movement (temperance was a responce to working class women whose men finally stopped working on farms, had two cents to rub together every week for the first time in history, and spent it on beer. Once things like AA and other alcoholic treatment was available - and society had adjusted - temperance was out. But in the poverty stricken areas - a father with an alcohol problem was a killer to his family). Christians were there at the start of the labour movement against child labour laws, for unions and all. Also for a transfer of wealth in the 1930s - as the gilded age had hurt society and its growth. Again - in the civil rights movement - Christianty was there.
This is the Christianity "experts at front line work and social activists because" that the neocons are against. Because Christianity ends up working hand in hand with liberals for justice.
So - like clear skies, or whatever other bullshit line they weave. Christian movement in the USA is based on hatred of humanists and humanisty/christian legislation to mitigate the worst things in society. Read up on Tim LaHaye or Pat Robertson.
It is not christianity at all. It is a political movement. Demonstrated by the fight on abortion. For sure abortion is a tragedy - but if one hated it they woud fight with all the tools including other reproductive alternatives. But the religious right has not. And impose their woolly headed politics on places like Africa - where in rural areas - poor women often do not have a choice who they sleep with. Neither did any of us.
Christianity has made mistakes. No, no, they are not perfect. Hatred of usery in and of itself may have been responisble for the dark ages. Every wonder why as the Christian hierarchy grew the economy of Europe shut down in about AD 500? That went well.
Today's neocons would not dream of making banking illegal. They simply pick and choose the parts of the bible and fund the churches through elite and oil money. Look for that to happen in Canada. But it is not Christianity. It is a poor cousin.
Re: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
I agree,
what the heck is wrong the with people who are against Harper saying god bless Canada! only a bigot would say a human being who belives in god is not allowed to run for PM. It simply disg usts me, Harper is in no way attempting to force you to belive in god...its is simply his choice....many of us are Christians and I am sick of the extreme left constantly attack us.
I agree,
what the heck is wrong the with people who are against Harper saying god bless Canada! only a bigot would say a human being who belives in god is not allowed to run for PM. It simply disg usts me, Harper is in no way attempting to force you to belive in god...its is simply his choice....many of us are Christians and I am sick of the extreme left constantly attack us.
Re: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
Amazing that any Canadians are having a coniption over the words "God bless Canada".
Would they rather hear "God diss Canada?"
I bet all these self proclaimed athiests suddenly discover religion on their death beds.
:tongue5:
Amazing that any Canadians are having a coniption over the words "God bless Canada".
Would they rather hear "God diss Canada?"
I bet all these self proclaimed athiests suddenly discover religion on their death beds.
:tongue5:
RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
I guess the slide into ignorance has been growing as of late.
I am agnostic, which means by definition
“a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” Merriam-Webster.
I am also a moderate conservative.
My beliefs do not reflect my social conscious or political ideologies.
The problem that I have with Harper in saying “God Bless Canada”, is not the words themselves but who Stephen Harper was when he said it.
Stephen Harper the person is entitled to his beliefs religiously, socially, and politically and he is allowed to express them.
Stephen Harper the leader of the Conservative Party and possibly Prime Minister of Canada, can not put his own personal values out there as a direct assertion of the collective values that the people he represents share.
As leader of the party that I am affiliated with, Stephen Harper and I do not share in this value. Therefore, Harper should not represent me or those who think a like to me as that.
I guess the slide into ignorance has been growing as of late.
I am agnostic, which means by definition
“a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” Merriam-Webster.
I am also a moderate conservative.
My beliefs do not reflect my social conscious or political ideologies.
The problem that I have with Harper in saying “God Bless Canada”, is not the words themselves but who Stephen Harper was when he said it.
Stephen Harper the person is entitled to his beliefs religiously, socially, and politically and he is allowed to express them.
Stephen Harper the leader of the Conservative Party and possibly Prime Minister of Canada, can not put his own personal values out there as a direct assertion of the collective values that the people he represents share.
As leader of the party that I am affiliated with, Stephen Harper and I do not share in this value. Therefore, Harper should not represent me or those who think a like to me as that.
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
"Appeals to deities" are only "divisive" to small-minded, thin-skinned, anal retentive anti-religious people who can't handle the fact that most of their countrymen believe in God. Grow up.
If religious people have to tolerate gay civil unions/marriages, why shouldn't secular people have to tolerate the oh-so-offensive (NOT) "God bless Canada"? This is a stupid double-standard in Canada. We should never cater to those who would be offended by a politician simply making an appeal to God. There's no logical reason to be offended by it.
Harper is more suited to be the leader of Canada than Paul "if you don't share my values, you're unCanadian!" Martin is!
the caracal kid said:
"Appeals to deities" are only "divisive" to small-minded, thin-skinned, anal retentive anti-religious people who can't handle the fact that most of their countrymen believe in God. Grow up.
If religious people have to tolerate gay civil unions/marriages, why shouldn't secular people have to tolerate the oh-so-offensive (NOT) "God bless Canada"? This is a stupid double-standard in Canada. We should never cater to those who would be offended by a politician simply making an appeal to God. There's no logical reason to be offended by it.
Harper is more suited to be the leader of Canada than Paul "if you don't share my values, you're unCanadian!" Martin is!
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
1. I'm saying that "God bless Canada" shouldn't make you think of a Republican (Bush) any more than it would make you think of a Democrat (say, Clinton). To equate "God bless Canada" with Christian conservative thinking is bizarre. The man who created the idea for universal health care in Canada - Tommy Douglas - was a Christian clergy at one point, and a man of faith. He was certainly left of center, and I sincerely doubt he would have taken exception to "God bless Canada".
2. If you're not afraid of a belief in God, then there's no logical reason to be upset with "God bless Canada".
3. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to anything. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to our political leaders. If you choose to follow politics closely, then you ought to be prepared to hear things that you won't like, as not all politicians are going to agree with you... obviously. If atheists and agnostics are as thin-skinned as you imply that they are, then they need to grow up. Period.
4. I never said that I myself am religious. You can be an advocate for a group without being a member of said group (this should be incredibly obvious to any left of center poster on this board - most minority groups are championed by people outside of their group).
I do dislike this secular fundamentalism that screeches like harpies over the slightest hint of religiousity/spirituality in the public sphere. I don't want a boring, cookie cutter public sphere were people feel afraid to reveal their inner-most beliefs because it may offend some thin-skinned atheist, Christian fundamentlist, Islamic fundamentalist, etc... The reason that so many of our political debates, and discussions, are bereft of weighty issues and passionate speaking, is because our politicians feel like they have to walk on egg-shells. Secular fundamentalism (i.e. the idea that the public sphere should be completely sterilized against even the slightest hint of religiousity/spirituality) is a major contributing factor to this.
Citizen said:
1. I'm saying that "God bless Canada" shouldn't make you think of a Republican (Bush) any more than it would make you think of a Democrat (say, Clinton). To equate "God bless Canada" with Christian conservative thinking is bizarre. The man who created the idea for universal health care in Canada - Tommy Douglas - was a Christian clergy at one point, and a man of faith. He was certainly left of center, and I sincerely doubt he would have taken exception to "God bless Canada".
2. If you're not afraid of a belief in God, then there's no logical reason to be upset with "God bless Canada".
3. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to anything. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to our political leaders. If you choose to follow politics closely, then you ought to be prepared to hear things that you won't like, as not all politicians are going to agree with you... obviously. If atheists and agnostics are as thin-skinned as you imply that they are, then they need to grow up. Period.
4. I never said that I myself am religious. You can be an advocate for a group without being a member of said group (this should be incredibly obvious to any left of center poster on this board - most minority groups are championed by people outside of their group).
I do dislike this secular fundamentalism that screeches like harpies over the slightest hint of religiousity/spirituality in the public sphere. I don't want a boring, cookie cutter public sphere were people feel afraid to reveal their inner-most beliefs because it may offend some thin-skinned atheist, Christian fundamentlist, Islamic fundamentalist, etc... The reason that so many of our political debates, and discussions, are bereft of weighty issues and passionate speaking, is because our politicians feel like they have to walk on egg-shells. Secular fundamentalism (i.e. the idea that the public sphere should be completely sterilized against even the slightest hint of religiousity/spirituality) is a major contributing factor to this.
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
I think it's strange to expect every single word that comes from a potential (or actual) Prime Minister's mouth to be reflective, or representative, of all Canadians. There were many things that Chretien said, and many things that Martin said, that I myself don't agree with - that don't reflect, or represent, my viewpoints at all. For example, I don't agree with getting rid of the notwithstanding clause unless we get an elected Senate, and/or a confirmation process for SCOC judges.
Now, if Harper said "I think that I speak for all Canadians when I say God bless Canada!", that would have been wrong, yes. But if he just says "God bless Canada", he's merely making a personal appeal to a Being that he believes in. If you don't believe in that Being, I don't see why that should bother you (again, my Luke Skywalker/Superman point).
Finally, you don't have a right to not be offended. You do have a right to freedom of speech. The moment we try to muzzle people who say "God bless Canada" is the moment we've stopped valuing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is much more important than any person's sensibilities - and that includes atheists, and agnostics.
JomZ said:
I think it's strange to expect every single word that comes from a potential (or actual) Prime Minister's mouth to be reflective, or representative, of all Canadians. There were many things that Chretien said, and many things that Martin said, that I myself don't agree with - that don't reflect, or represent, my viewpoints at all. For example, I don't agree with getting rid of the notwithstanding clause unless we get an elected Senate, and/or a confirmation process for SCOC judges.
Now, if Harper said "I think that I speak for all Canadians when I say God bless Canada!", that would have been wrong, yes. But if he just says "God bless Canada", he's merely making a personal appeal to a Being that he believes in. If you don't believe in that Being, I don't see why that should bother you (again, my Luke Skywalker/Superman point).
Finally, you don't have a right to not be offended. You do have a right to freedom of speech. The moment we try to muzzle people who say "God bless Canada" is the moment we've stopped valuing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is much more important than any person's sensibilities - and that includes atheists, and agnostics.
Re: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
Well, that just goes to prove what I've been saying... conservatives don't have a monopoly on Christianity. "God bless Canada" can be said by a liberal Christian just as easily as it can be said by a conservative Christian.
peachy said:
Well, that just goes to prove what I've been saying... conservatives don't have a monopoly on Christianity. "God bless Canada" can be said by a liberal Christian just as easily as it can be said by a conservative Christian.
RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
By the way, God is referenced in our Canadian national anthem. Should we edit the Canadian national anthem?
It seems to me that if "God bless Canada" is unacceptable than so is "God keep our land...". The flipside of that, of course, is that if "God keep our land..." is acceptable, so is "God bless Canada".
By the way, God is referenced in our Canadian national anthem. Should we edit the Canadian national anthem?
It seems to me that if "God bless Canada" is unacceptable than so is "God keep our land...". The flipside of that, of course, is that if "God keep our land..." is acceptable, so is "God bless Canada".
Re: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious Righ
Well said, as usual Dr. Z.
"God keep our land
Glorious and free."
The "Dominion" of Canada.
etc.,
zoofer said:
Well said, as usual Dr. Z.
"God keep our land
Glorious and free."
The "Dominion" of Canada.
etc.,
Re: RE: Harper - The Canadian Version of the U.S. Religious
Excellent post, Triple R, I agree with every word.
Triple_R said:
Excellent post, Triple R, I agree with every word.