Is the Queen Catholic?

SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Liberalman said:
According to the erotic tv show the BBC's Tudor, No

King Henry wanted a divorce from his wife and the Vatican would not allow it so he started his own religion.
Click to expand...

Right you are, Liberalman. Henry the VIII wanted a divorce, Catholic Church wouldn’t grant it. So out of pique, he started a new church, called it Church of England.

There really was no doctrinal reasons to start a new church (as happened during Reformation for instances). It was purely procedural. Henry appointed himself as the head of the church of course, so he could get as many divorces as he liked.

Probably Henry himself would be surprised that the Church is still alive today.
 
SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Cliffy said:
Why does a democracy need a queen or any figure head like the GG? Tradition is out dated and irrelevant in the 21st century. I really don't see what the debate is about. One likes having a monarchy and the other doesn't but to me it is a meaningless concept.
Click to expand...

I agree that monarchy doesn’t have much meaning these days. If we didn’t have the monarchy, it wouldn’t make any sense to embrace it today.

But now that it is already here, I don’t see much point in getting rid of it. Besides, what would we replace the monarchy with? Do we abolish the post of GG, keep it appointed by the PM as it is now, have an elected GG, what? Canadians will never agree on that. So I think it is better to keep the monarchy until we think of a better idea (and I don’t think anybody has come up with a better idea).
 
SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
dumpthemonarchy said:
Now these issues are irrelevant to us, but govts and religions hold outdated attitudes, and we don't mind because they no longer trouble us. However, cutting these bonds formally is necessary to limit their role in govt policy and prevent a reviival. So, the sooner we dump the monarchy in Canada, the better off we'll be.
Click to expand...

And just what role does the monarchy have n deciding Canada’s policies? And exactly what revival are you talking about? Tent revival?

And we will be better off if we dump the monarchy? How? In my opinion, the monarchy is neither a great asset nor a great albatross around Canada’s neck. It is a non issue. As long as it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
 
s_lone

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
SirJosephPorter said:
Perhaps. But what harm having the Queen as the head of state (who also happens to be the head of Church of England) has done to Canada? And I say this as an Atheist.
Click to expand...

What harm does that big pile of dust in the corner of my office do? None, except for the fact that it looks foolish and unclean and that my office will be a better place without it.

What if the Pope was Head of State of Italy? Would you consider this position as being secular? Hardly. Separation between church and state would have vanished if that was the case. In theory there isn't much difference if you consider the Queen and the UK. To be honest, the Queen cannot be compared to the pope because she isn't trying to convert the whole world and she mostly keeps her moral opinions to herself, which is a good thing. But nonetheless, the whole idea of having our Head of State as head of a national church smells pretty rotten to me.

I believe any Head of State has a right to practise any faith it considers worthy of practising. But in my book, being head of Church of England clearly crosses the line between secular and non-secular. Not much harm has been done of course. Not much benefit either. It's entirely a question of principle in my opinion. I'd have more respect for our institutions if we updated our system to something more relevant to today's society. But that's just me. I understand how one can feel otherwise.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
s_lone said:
What harm does that big pile of dust in the corner of my office do? None, except for the fact that it looks foolish and unclean and that my office will be a better place without it.

What if the Pope was Head of State of Italy? Would you consider this position as being secular? Hardly. Separation between church and state would have vanished if that was the case. In theory there isn't much difference if you consider the Queen and the UK. To be honest, the Queen cannot be compared to the pope because she isn't trying to convert the whole world and she mostly keeps her moral opinions to herself, which is a good thing. But nonetheless, the whole idea of having our Head of State as head of a national church smells pretty rotten to me.

I believe any Head of State has a right to practise any faith it considers worthy of practising. But in my book, being head of Church of England clearly crosses the line between secular and non-secular. Not much harm has been done of course. Not much benefit either. It's entirely a question of principle in my opinion. I'd have more respect for our institutions if we updated our system to something more relevant to today's society. But that's just me. I understand how one can feel otherwise.
Click to expand...



actually, as a quebecois, you'd rather see any and all Canadian english institutions tore down and thrown out with no regard to Canada or Canadians.
 
s_lone

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
Cut the bull**** and speak for yourself. The fact that I don't believe in monarchy doesn't mean I want to scrap anything for the simple reason that it's "English Canadian". I'm half "English Canadian" in case you hadn't noticed.

It's sad that you need this explained to you.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
s_lone said:
Cut the bull**** and speak for yourself. The fact that I don't believe in monarchy doesn't mean I want to scrap anything for the simple reason that it's "English Canadian". I'm half "English Canadian" in case you hadn't noticed.

It's sad that you need this explained to you.
Click to expand...


What's sad is you having to nit pick...typical seperatist quebecois ploy. The Queen of Canada has NEVER injected her religious beliefs on Canada, so therefore the point is moot.
 
s_lone

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
gerryh said:
What's sad is you having to nit pick...typical seperatist quebecois ploy. The Queen of Canada has NEVER injected her religious beliefs on Canada, so therefore the point is moot.
Click to expand...

You're a fascinating creature Gerry. First you accuse me of wanting to bring down anything that's remotely English Canadian. And then you accuse me of nitpicking. The only thing coherent in your posts is your hatred of separatists.

I can see you have trouble reading so I will quote myself...

To be honest, the Queen cannot be compared to the pope because she isn't trying to convert the whole world and she mostly keeps her moral opinions to herself, which is a good thing.

I never accused the Queen of injecting here religious beliefs on Canada.

I've stated my opinion clearly. Once you manage your anger issues, perhaps you'll be able to adress the real issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spade
SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
s_lone said:
Not much harm has been done of course. Not much benefit either. It's entirely a question of principle in my opinion. I'd have more respect for our institutions if we updated our system to something more relevant to today's society. But that's just me. I understand how one can feel otherwise.
Click to expand...

That is precisely the point, where is the harm? Now I agree the optics of it look bad (having a head of state who is also head of a religion). But if it is working OK in practice (And it is), my opinion is, leave it alone.

s_lone said:
What harm does that big pile of dust in the corner of my office do? None, except for the fact that it looks foolish and unclean and that my office will be a better place without it.
Click to expand...

Referring to that pile of dust in your office, how do you know what is under the dust? May be you have asbestos under the dust. The dust is keeping it covered up and harmless. Remove the dust and you are exposed to asbestos fibers.

That really summarizes my attitude towards these things, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Monarchy seems to be working OK, so leave well enough alone. There isn’t any agreement what we should replace it with anyway.
 
A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
SirJosephPorter said:
I agree that monarchy doesn’t have much meaning these days. If we didn’t have the monarchy, it wouldn’t make any sense to embrace it today.

But now that it is already here, I don’t see much point in getting rid of it. Besides, what would we replace the monarchy with? Do we abolish the post of GG, keep it appointed by the PM as it is now, have an elected GG, what? Canadians will never agree on that. So I think it is better to keep the monarchy until we think of a better idea (and I don’t think anybody has come up with a better idea).
Click to expand...
A direct democracy like the democratic republic of Switzerland would be good. It's been mentioned quite a few times that there are several countries with much better governments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
SirJosephPorter said:
That is precisely the point, where is the harm? Now I agree the optics of it look bad (having a head of state who is also head of a religion). But if it is working OK in practice (And it is), my opinion is, leave it alone.



Referring to that pile of dust in your office, how do you know what is under the dust? May be you have asbestos under the dust. The dust is keeping it covered up and harmless. Remove the dust and you are exposed to asbestos fibers.

That really summarizes my attitude towards these things, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Monarchy seems to be working OK, so leave well enough alone. There isn’t any agreement what we should replace it with anyway.
Click to expand...
If you call "work" doing nothing but being a host/hostess at tea parties, greeting people (they do that at Walmart, too), riding around in a coach at ceremonies, giving a speech once or twice a year, that's fine.
No it isn't broke, but it also doesn't do much of anything. IOW, it's dead weight and really expensive dead weight at that.
 
A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Whatever you guys vote is fine with me. I think it'd cost a bundle to rearrange gov't initially (and I can't see where we can afford it at this time) but in the long run it'd likely save us money.
Sort of like LED lights in the house. Expensive initially to get the same amount of light, but cheaper in the long run.
Canada is a more-or-less democratically elected oligarchy. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom