....how would Extropians define Canada's God?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Party of Citizens <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [LIFE-GAZETTE] Defining Canada's God with a US "Faith-based" Grant
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> ... I am a typical American
> constitutionalist in the sense that I do not believe in mixing
> religion with politics.
In Canada's case we have a Constitution in which we can find "...Whereas
Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God...."
Perhaps President Bush got the wrong country with his "faith-based public
works" and "culture of life". That fits with the "revelation" by CBC's
satirical "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" during the Bush campaign. The
interviewer told Bush that Prime Minister "Poutine" of Canada had endorsed
him as leader of the free world and asked Bush what he thought of
that. Without missing a beat your "C Student" waxed eloquent on the
excellent relations between USA and Canada. (I'd like to hear what he has
to say now about Michael J. Fox being President of Mexico).
The definition of "religion" is pretty slippery though we all use the word
as if everyone understands it. The Bible mentions it only three
times. My Webster's definition #4 seems closest to the popular usage: "a
cause, principle or belief held to with faith or ardour".
> As I have stated before God is Truth.
> ... I am not against a God centered legal system because that would
> create a society that was truth centered. The problem arises when the
> state decides that it is going to be a mediator between God and Man
> instead of an institution that upholds Gods laws and is itself
> subject to those laws.
Canada is already a God-centred nation by Constitution. I was sent the 60
or so pages of Hansard by Dennis Mills, MP from 1981 when the inclusion of
that clause quoted above was debated. Even Prime Minister Jean
"Poutine" Chretien, then Justice Minister, wanted it in the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms portion of the Constitution. Trouble is we don't have
a definition of Canada's God...which would also in effect give a
definition of Canada's religion. So I asked House Leader Don Boudria, MP
who wisely said we should ask the religion experts (like the clergy).
In Canada's case the mediating role would be left to the clergy but the
UPHOLDING OF GOD'S LAW IS DEMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION. And the
Constitution is the foundation of all law in Canada. But we are back to
square one. What are those principles of the God of Canada? How would you
articulate them in a form we all would understand?
>... In other words, the state as legislaters become priests so to
In Canada's case the JUDGES have become the priesthood deciding on the
meaning of those "Godly principles" (and practices). I was shocked and
amazed when I read in the "Reasons for Judgement" of BC Judge F.E. Howard
her review of how and why this had happened and what it meant. The judges
got the job by default. The legislatures refused to discuss the matter, ie
to define God...too much of a hot potato. The clergy are a bunch of
religion quacks, liars and cowards here as they are in the US and they run
away from the subject. So THE JUDGES BECAME PRIESTS.
> A God centered government would be like the USA government was
> originally intended to be. The definition of God is agreed upon -
> Creator. God's role in nature and in man's life and existence is
> agreed upon. The fact that legislators will be held accountable to a
> higher law - God's law is agreed upon....
Fortunately, in Canada's case we don't have to speculate on the
"intentions" of people from 200 years ago...or today. Canada
has a God-centred government by Constitution. Thus those legislators are
obligated by law to make laws which are in accord with "principles that
recognize the supremacy of God". Yet I would like to see just one piece of
legislation in Canada which is presented with this as a preamble. ALL
LEGISLATION SHOULD BE PRESENTED AS IN ACCORD WITH GOD'S LAWS. Any other
legislation is unconstitutional. When we get this straightened out, a lot
of legislation is going to be axed.
> Then you determine what is the definition of a crime. When you have
> defined what a crime is you can create legislation based upon that
> legislation. And this makes for the foundation of your justice
> system that is God centered. And that is what our forefathers tried
> to do. It defines the role of Government, or God, and of the law
> abiding citizen, and of the criminal.
> What our forefathers did not do is take those definitions further.
And now you can correct the error by applying for a faith-based grant to
help Canada define "God", "principles that recognize the supremacy of
God" and laws which follow from those principles.
Canada-USA increase by about 300,000 + 3,200,000 per year. I would like to
see a faith-based public works project to build a model city plus
surroundings on the Canada-US border. Maybe total population of about
1,000,000. Let's see who can translate those principles and definitions
into the reality of a habitat/lifestyle on this planet which is really
first rate. "Faith without works is dead".
What kind of city with surroundings would one expect of a "faith-based public works" project with the objective of designing and constructing a "culture of life"? Would a George Bush "culture of life" be the same as a Vatican "culture of life"?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT