Who do you think your fooling?
A secular state? Explain yourself please. Do you mean our government is secular, or we as a nation?
Last edited:
Is the Queen Catholic?
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Who do you think your fooling?
:roll: A head of state is a GOVERNMENT figure. A nation has many religions. 1 + 1 = 2.
Ban on Catholics made sense when Church of England was started by Henry the VIII. However, these days England does not have an official religion, so it does not make sense to ban all the other religions except Church of England when it comes to monarchy.
However, Catholics probably have overlooked one little point. Britain cannot lift the ban just on Catholics, that would be highly discriminatory. They would have to lift the ban on all the religions, make it so that the monarch could hold any religious beliefs.
That theoretically opens up the way for a Muslim to become the Monarch of Britain. In theory, heir to the throne could convert to Islam and still become the monarch (or could become the monarch and then become a Muslim).
Are the British ready for such an eventuality?
1. Shouldn't that read, "Whom do you think you're fooling?"
2. See Anna's comment.
PS to Allah-ways
You still have not answered my four questions...
Last edited:
A head of State is a government figure (i.e., related to the workings of government) but not a Government figure (i.e., involved in the practical day-to-day decision-making process for a Westminster system of government). And besides, the Honourable the Senate of Canada has determined that the Queen’s role as Defender of the Faith is not incompatible with a secular democracy.
Not in the Constitution Act.
I am interested in the Senate statement!
Please reference..
Cousin Spade
I’m very sorry, Spade, it was honourable senators that made this statement upon further review (I apologise, it was some time ago that I read it); it was the late The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent P.C., C.C., Q.C., the 12th Prime Minister of Canada. His statement was read into the Hansard on 3 February 1953.
The title of the Queen, since her coronation in 1953, and on the Constitution Act (1982), contains the phrase "defender of the faith." What faith is she defending, aside from St. Laurent's aside for which I am searching in Hansard.
Re: The Queen of Canada, Defender of the Faith
The late prime minister suggested that Her Majesty the Queen’s title as Defender of the Faith is one in reference to a divine Providence guiding the affairs of man (just as does the prayer at each sitting of the House of Commons), and that no reasonable person could argue against the inclusion of such a title for the Canadian head of State.
The late prime minister suggested that Her Majesty the Queen’s title as Defender of the Faith is one in reference to a divine Providence guiding the affairs of man (just as does the prayer at each sitting of the House of Commons), and that no reasonable person could argue against the inclusion of such a title for the Canadian head of State.
Divine right of kings?
"Defender of the faith" was the title conferred on Henry VIII by the pope and used by Henry during the English Reformation as justification for his establishment of the Anglican Church.
"Defender of the faith" was the title conferred on Henry VIII by the pope and used by Henry during the English Reformation as justification for his establishment of the Anglican Church.
Re: The Queen of Canada, Defender of the Faith
Re-read my post, Spade.
You can’t just pick out the word “divine”, ignore everything else, and then extrapolate the rest of my post. The title of “Defender of the Faith”, in its Canadian context, does not call for allegiance to any particular faith; rather, in a contemporary Canadian society, it calls for the defense of the freedom of faith. The Canadian constitution has always evolved with the times to meet the needs of a more modern Canadian people, so it is entirely reasonable for the particulars of the Royal Style and Titles Act to follow suit.
Re-read my post, Spade.
You can’t just pick out the word “divine”, ignore everything else, and then extrapolate the rest of my post. The title of “Defender of the Faith”, in its Canadian context, does not call for allegiance to any particular faith; rather, in a contemporary Canadian society, it calls for the defense of the freedom of faith. The Canadian constitution has always evolved with the times to meet the needs of a more modern Canadian people, so it is entirely reasonable for the particulars of the Royal Style and Titles Act to follow suit.
Defender of the Faith is just a title; I don’t think it signifies anything any more. In the old days, ‘Defender of the Faith’ meant exactly that, the monarch would fight for the country, fight to defend the faith.
In the days of constitutional monarchy, it is just a title, a tradition, nothing more. There are many traditions in Britain, carried forth over hundreds of years. I don’t think ‘Defender of the Faith’ has any more significance than that.
In the days of constitutional monarchy, it is just a title, a tradition, nothing more. There are many traditions in Britain, carried forth over hundreds of years. I don’t think ‘Defender of the Faith’ has any more significance than that.
If as SJP and 5P argue, that foreign titles of inherited privilege are mere traditions, mean nothing more, then they mean even less, here, in the twenty-first century.
I have not argued that the title means nothing, Spade, quite the contrary.
Am I on your ignore list or something? You don’t seem to be able to see my posts. :roll:
Am I on your ignore list or something? You don’t seem to be able to see my posts. :roll:
No, I am not ignoring you! I am taking royalist arguments "ad absurdum!" But, I respect your point of view; I simple disagree with it. And, I do not think the monarchy is a unifying force in Canada.
Right you are, Spade. I don't know what FP is arguing, but that is exactly what I am saying. Defender of the Faith means even less in Canada than in Britain, and in Britain it means very little. In my opinion, it is just a tradition.
I agree. Kind of like our Right "Honorable" Jean Cretin (or Brian Bullroney or aPAULing Martin, etc.)
Anecdotal. Worthless and meaningless.