Religious Holiday - should we stop?

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Religious Holiday - s

Bah..we need more holidays damnit. I am enjoying my day off and they are few and far between. I feel like a freaking work robot, so if they want to give me all the Christian, Non-Religious, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, etc etc holidays off, im all over that

Honestly, I would not want that. If all holidays were recognised (and believe me, there are alot of them), I'd never work! From where would the money come?

Now for me it really doesn't matter much since I do most of my work from home on my computer. So statutory or not, I can still choose to get onto my computer and work away. Any time of day. I can choose a short or long lunch break. Work in my PJs or late at night. Or on the weekend. So for me it doesn't matter. But for most working people, or if I was working on a scedule, it would big time! from that standpoint, it would be better if we simply were each granted our own religious holidays, that way we could still find time to work and earn a living while get the days off which mean alot to us... kid of like getting our cake and eating it too, best of both worlds.

Besides, I enjoy my work!

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Religious Holiday - s

Honestly, I would not want that. If all holidays were recognised (and believe me, there are alot of them), I'd never work! From where would the money come?

Well..i haven't thought that far in advance. LOL. But damnit, does noone else share my burning passion to celebrate National Beaver Day? Celebrate the beaver! LOL.

K..back to seriousness...two things. One, would it help if we were to rename the holiday? So we would not have Good Friday off..it would be nationally labelled as "Spring Holiday" or some other crap. Or would it be better to scrap the religious holidays and replace them with other holidays around the time that were more national in nature?

IF we are on this topic anyways.... why don't we as a Canadian nation celebrate the Bonhomme De Neige thing that Quebec celebrates (and gets the day off). Or why does the rest of Canada not get Family Day off like we do in Alberta? So therefore, should we not get the same days off as our provinical counterparts?

 

[I think not]

Sorry, but the history of how "Christianity" came to the Americas was all but Christian:

Children of Duplessis, residential schools, forced relocations, violent suppression of indian languages in the residential schools (among other things which were happenning there)... There are certainly Christians in Canada, but man of those people who first came to the continent were conquerors in the guise of Christians. Is that the history of which you so proudly speak?

Uhm, don't put words in my mouth, I never said I was proud of anything, as a matter of fact I disagree with any country labeled any kind of specific religion. And by the way I am rather surprised at your brief history lesson, because you left out the French Catholics and Jesuits that came to Canada from Europe in great numbers. When the Brits arrived, so did Protestants. And don't forget the Quebec Act of 1774, basically acknowledging the Catholic Church. Acadians and Catholicism were basically the same thing at the time, binding politics and religion. And let's not forget the United Empire Loyalists that swarmed Canada after the American Revolution.

So in conclusion I must say that no, Canada, while founded upon the pretence of Christianity, was by no means founded upon Christian principles. If anything, today's Canada comes closer to those principles (native and women's right to vote, acknowledgement of past injustices and attempts at rectifying them, etc.) that that of yesteryears.

A charter and a croun are not what makes a nation Christian; observance of Christian principles, charter, croun or not, does.

A Charter and a crwon says alot more on what it was founded upon than opinion, no?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Religious Holiday - should we stop?

Why does the queen being a Christian matter to the discussion? If the next president the US elects is Jewish, that doesn't make the US a Jewish nation.

It doesn't, carrying a title that includes, "By the Grace of God", "Defender of the Faith" and being Supreme Governor of the Chruch of England, having a cross on her crown, the Charter acknowledging the Supremacy of God, does.

I mean what else do you require?

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: Religious Holiday - s

Honestly, I would not want that. If all holidays were recognised (and believe me, there are alot of them), I'd never work! From where would the money come?

Well..i haven't thought that far in advance. LOL. But damnit, does noone else share my burning passion to celebrate National Beaver Day? Celebrate the beaver! LOL.

K..back to seriousness...two things. One, would it help if we were to rename the holiday? So we would not have Good Friday off..it would be nationally labelled as "Spring Holiday" or some other crap. Or would it be better to scrap the religious holidays and replace them with other holidays around the time that were more national in nature?

IF we are on this topic anyways.... why don't we as a Canadian nation celebrate the Bonhomme De Neige thing that Quebec celebrates (and gets the day off). Or why does the rest of Canada not get Family Day off like we do in Alberta? So therefore, should we not get the same days off as our provinical counterparts?

Yes I share your passion for beavers and your burning passion for
a National Darkbeaver Day. :lol:

 

[Said1]

I would support a natinal Dark Beagle day. So would the beagle.

 

[unclepercy]

Voices won't change history, and that is what some tend to strive for. Canada was and is a Christian nation, what happens in the future is anybody's guess. And besides, seems to me your logic is faulty. I quoted your Charter, your Head of State, your government funds Christian schools with public money, you have no separation of Church and State (How could you with the Charter and the Queen) and according to Jesrsay's post, 80% of your country believes in one form of Christianity or another.

So? what's your argument? If it's about the future, more power to you, however, you cannot deny the past nor the present.

If your estimate of 80% is accurate for Canada, that makes Canada slightly more Christian than the USA. I read that 75% of the USA identifies with the Christian faith. Now remember that statistics can be off just a bit - I'd say that makes us even. Let us all pray. :lol:

Uncle

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Religious Holiday - should we stop?

Why does the queen being a Christian matter to the discussion? If the next president the US elects is Jewish, that doesn't make the US a Jewish nation.

It doesn't, carrying a title that includes, "By the Grace of God", "Defender of the Faith" and being Supreme Governor of the Chruch of England, having a cross on her crown, the Charter acknowledging the Supremacy of God, does.

I mean what else do you require?

I guess I don't see why the queen being all those things means that my whole country is defined by them. Sure, she's the governor of the Church of England, defender of the faith, blah, blah, blah... I get that. I just don't see why that automatically makes it our country's official religion or anything. The Queen is a formality for most of us. I thought the government would have to proclaim it, like they do the national sport or the national anthem or whatever and I can't imagine them doing that. The majority of Canadians are Christians, but the society as a whole is mixed.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Religious Holiday - should we stop?

I guess I don't see why the queen being all those things means that my whole country is defined by them. Sure, she's the governor of the Church of England, defender of the faith, blah, blah, blah... I get that. I just don't see why that automatically makes it our country's official religion or anything. The Queen is a formality for most of us. I thought the government would have to proclaim it, like they do the national sport or the national anthem or whatever and I can't imagine them doing that. The majority of Canadians are Christians, but the society as a whole is mixed.

I never said it defines Canada's official religion, I have said throughout this thread, Canada was founded based upon Christian principles and to a certain extent, this "tradition" or principles continue today.

Also, whereas it may not be Canada's official religion, the government does fund Christian schools with public money.

And the overall point I am trying to make is this, when Christians in Canada claim Canada was founded on Christian values and continues to a certain extent today, they are right.

 

[tracy]

OK, I agree with you there. For me, it's when someone says it's a Christian country today that I disagree to a certain extent cause it isn't officially of any religion as far as I knew.

 

[the caracal kid]

"when Christians in Canada claim Canada was founded on Christian values and continues to a certain extent today, they are right. "

are they?

what are these uniquely christian values?

there are no unique christian values, so it is more accurate for them to say "these values that we uphold, but are not our creations, we have used to build a country".

 

[Machjo]

quote="I think not"

Sorry, but the history of how "Christianity" came to the Americas was all but Christian:

Children of Duplessis, residential schools, forced relocations, violent suppression of indian languages in the residential schools (among other things which were happenning there)... There are certainly Christians in Canada, but man of those people who first came to the continent were conquerors in the guise of Christians. Is that the history of which you so proudly speak?

And by the way I am rather surprised at your brief history lesson, because you left out the French Catholics and Jesuits that came to Canada from Europe in great numbers.

I'm not denying there were real Christians. What I'm saying is that many were so in name only. So to say that Canada was founded on Christian principles would be insulting to that Faith.

When the Brits arrived, so did Protestants. And don't forget the Quebec Act of 1774, basically acknowledging the Catholic Church.

And it's that same church which raped children.

Acadians and Catholicism were basically the same thing at the time, binding politics and religion. And let's not forget the United Empire Loyalists that swarmed Canada after the American Revolution.

Catholics in Quebec were even told by their priests on occasion to attack protestants and their churches. And the residential schools were NOT limited to French Canada either, although if I'm not mystaken, that's where they got the brunt of it.

So in conclusion I must say that no, Canada, while founded upon the pretence of Christianity, was by no means founded upon Christian principles. If anything, today's Canada comes closer to those principles (native and women's right to vote, acknowledgement of past injustices and attempts at rectifying them, etc.) that that of yesteryears.

A charter and a croun are not what makes a nation Christian; observance of Christian principles, charter, croun or not, does.

A Charter and a crwon says alot more on what it was founded upon than opinion, no?


If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is based on practice, not officiality and ceremony.

 

[I think not]

They aren't uniquely Christian, however those who implemented those values, were. Right?

And may I ask what is the problem acknowledging history? And why the attempt towards revisionism?

 

[I think not]

quote="I think not"

Sorry, but the history of how "Christianity" came to the Americas was all but Christian:

Children of Duplessis, residential schools, forced relocations, violent suppression of indian languages in the residential schools (among other things which were happenning there)... There are certainly Christians in Canada, but man of those people who first came to the continent were conquerors in the guise of Christians. Is that the history of which you so proudly speak?

And by the way I am rather surprised at your brief history lesson, because you left out the French Catholics and Jesuits that came to Canada from Europe in great numbers.

I'm not denying there were real Christians. What I'm saying is that many were so in name only. So to say that Canada was founded on Christian principles would be insulting to that Faith.

When the Brits arrived, so did Protestants. And don't forget the Quebec Act of 1774, basically acknowledging the Catholic Church.

And it's that same church which raped children.

Acadians and Catholicism were basically the same thing at the time, binding politics and religion. And let's not forget the United Empire Loyalists that swarmed Canada after the American Revolution.

Catholics in Quebec were even told by their priests on occasion to attack protestants and their churches. And the residential schools were NOT limited to French Canada either, although if I'm not mystaken, that's where they got the brunt of it.

So in conclusion I must say that no, Canada, while founded upon the pretence of Christianity, was by no means founded upon Christian principles. If anything, today's Canada comes closer to those principles (native and women's right to vote, acknowledgement of past injustices and attempts at rectifying them, etc.) that that of yesteryears.

A charter and a croun are not what makes a nation Christian; observance of Christian principles, charter, croun or not, does.

A Charter and a crwon says alot more on what it was founded upon than opinion, no?


If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is based on practice, not officiality and ceremony.

Congratulations Machjo, all you did was try to discredit Christianity and Christians. You sound like the other dude with the French, same tune different organ playing.

Is this how you defend the undefendable? Pitty.

 

[FiveParadox]

I don't think that's the intention, I think not.

I would suggest that, in terms of Canada, it would be correct to say that we were founded under, more-or-less, Christian principles. However, I don't think that it would be correct, in my opinion, to state that because of that history, Canada must be forever considered a "Christian state". Rather, I would suggest that Canada is now a secular nation, with a heritage of Christian founding — would that perhaps be more appropriate?

 

[Machjo]

quote="I think not"

Sorry, but the history of how "Christianity" came to the Americas was all but Christian:

Children of Duplessis, residential schools, forced relocations, violent suppression of indian languages in the residential schools (among other things which were happenning there)... There are certainly Christians in Canada, but man of those people who first came to the continent were conquerors in the guise of Christians. Is that the history of which you so proudly speak?

And by the way I am rather surprised at your brief history lesson, because you left out the French Catholics and Jesuits that came to Canada from Europe in great numbers.

I'm not denying there were real Christians. What I'm saying is that many were so in name only. So to say that Canada was founded on Christian principles would be insulting to that Faith.

When the Brits arrived, so did Protestants. And don't forget the Quebec Act of 1774, basically acknowledging the Catholic Church.

And it's that same church which raped children.

Acadians and Catholicism were basically the same thing at the time, binding politics and religion. And let's not forget the United Empire Loyalists that swarmed Canada after the American Revolution.

Catholics in Quebec were even told by their priests on occasion to attack protestants and their churches. And the residential schools were NOT limited to French Canada either, although if I'm not mystaken, that's where they got the brunt of it.

So in conclusion I must say that no, Canada, while founded upon the pretence of Christianity, was by no means founded upon Christian principles. If anything, today's Canada comes closer to those principles (native and women's right to vote, acknowledgement of past injustices and attempts at rectifying them, etc.) that that of yesteryears.

A charter and a croun are not what makes a nation Christian; observance of Christian principles, charter, croun or not, does.

A Charter and a crwon says alot more on what it was founded upon than opinion, no?


If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is based on practice, not officiality and ceremony.

Congratulations Machjo, all you did was try to discredit Christianity and Christians. You sound like the other dude with the French, same tune different organ playing.

Is this how you defend the undefendable? Pitty.

On the contrary. I'm defending Christianity from your claim that the atrocities upon which Canada was founded were of Christian origin!

 

[I think not]

On the contrary. I'm defending Christianity from your claim that the atrocities upon which Canada was founded were of Christian origin!

Nice dodge Machjo, too bad for you people have reading comprehension, and I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Machjo]

I'm not denying there were real Christians. But remember, the real christians went to North America to teach the Gospel, not claim native land. In other words, had all those who professed Christianity been Christians, Canada would not even exist today as a nation since we'd have a bunch of smaller Cree, Inuktitut, Huron, Montagnais, and other nations all over north America, or most probably a North American federation composed of these nations. Maybe they'd be Christian, maybe not. But if Christian, then we could certainly claim that they were truly Christian nations in deed, not only word.

Those who went to North America to CLAIM native land for the King are the ones who made the creation of Canada possible (obviously, had they not claimed any land, it would all be native still today). Now there are two possibilities here. Either they never claimed to be Christian in the first place (in which case Canada is certainly not founded upon Christian social structures) or they claimed to be but weren't (in which case Canada was never founded upon Chrsitian principles). Or a third possibility is to say that they not only claimed to be Christian, but were practicing, which would thus imply that Jesus supports conquest of other lands; from my reading of the gospel, that was not the case).

Quebec being part of Canada was also based on war(plains of Abraham). Had the British not conquered New France, Quebec would not even be a part of Canada today. So now if we claim that Canada as a nation is based on Christian principles, then we are implying that that war and bloodshed with New France was a supremely Christian act. If we claim that that carnage was un-Christian, then the Canada we know today which includes Quebec can't logically be based on Christian principles, now can it?

So in conclusion, had Christian principles prevailed in North America, while it may be that we'd have (or not, no one knows) a Christian government today, we would certainly all be chatting in this forum in various native languages right now, and Canada as a nation would not even exist. So the fact that Canada even exists as a nation proves that it was not founded upon Chrsitian principles regardless of the Queen's Title (again, the Christian Faith is based on practice, not title!).

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Religious Holiday - s

So far, i have one other person who will sign the petition to have a National Beaver day. Woohoo.

 

[thecdn]

Re: RE: Religious Holiday - should we stop?

Rather, I would suggest that Canada is now a secular nation, with a heritage of Christian founding — would that perhaps be more appropriate?

That sounds very appropriate. Canada is now, and hopefully will always remain, a secular nation.

I lived the first 35 years of my life in Canada as a happy 'apathetic atheist' because I was left alone by the theists. I don't really recall discussions of religion coming up all that much and if they did they were very relaxed.

It was when I moved to the states that I became the militant, hard-core atheist that I am today with the vocal, mean-spirited, oppressive christianity that exists down here.

If I may use my new favourite quote:
"You're happy to believe in something that's invisible but if it's staring you in the face, nope, can't see it." - Dr. Who