Links: Monarchy: time for Canada to end its dependence
Go Home.
. . . Thomas Paine___ Origins of monarchy ___ Systems of government ___ Democracy ___ Religious discrimination
Thomas Paine: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/index.htm Home page. "These are the times that try men's souls." This simple quotation from Thomas Paine's The Crisis not only describes the beginnings of the American Revolution, but also the life of Paine himself. Throughout most of his life, he was a failure, living off the gratitude and generosity of others, but his writings helped inspire a nation. He communicated the ideas of the Revolution to common farmers as easily as to intellectuals, creating prose that stirred the hearts of the fledgling United States. He had a grand vision for society: he was staunchly anti-slavery, and he was one of the first to advocate a world peace organization and social security for the poor and elderly. But his radical views on religion would destroy his success, and by the end of his life, only a handful of people attended his funeral.. . .
This website contains these complete works of Thomas Paine, pamphleteer, patriot, dreamer (1737–1809).
COMMON SENSE (1776) Paine's call to arms for America.
THE CRISIS (1776-77) "These are the times that try men's souls."
THE RIGHTS OF MAN (1791-92) Paine's reply to an attack on the French Revolution by Edmund Burke.
AGE OF REASON (1794, 1796) Paine's biting criticism of the Bible and religion.
Applying Principle to Practice, Chapter 2 -- Of the Origin of the Present Old Governments: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-02.htm The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present government of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.
The origin of the Government of England, so far as relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.
Those bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian. The conqueror considered the conquered, not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. . . .
Concept of Justice, September 8 - Locke: http://www.american.edu/dgolash/locke.htm Concept of Justice, Sept 8, 1999. Locke ch. 2-5. Major questions for today: Basis of rights in general. natural/positive rights. Basis of right to govern. Basis of property rights.
How many have paid taxes? Why did you do that? Do you have an obligation to do so?
Locke’s initial question: how does it come to be that some person or group of people have the right to tell others what to do? (distinguish moral from prudential question) . . .
Royalty: http://royalty.about.com/aboutuk/royalty/mlibrary.htm?once=true& Many links.
The British Monarchy: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ The Official Web site.
Governor General of Canada - Gouverneur général du Canada: http://www.gg.ca/
Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire: http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Canada's Parliament.
History HUB Canadian History: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/3165/canindex.html It includes the following link: Canadian History (Queen's University) Canadian History: http://stauffer.queensu.ca/inforef/history/canadian.htm Stauffer Library Reference.
Columns: http://www.unc.edu/dth/archives/1995/10/103095/col.html To the Surprise of Many, Canada Has Two Histories. Canada, the constitutional monarchy we know today, has mistakenly been perceived by most of the world as an integrated bilingual nation. It is in fact two nations with two different languages mingled in one political entity in which cultural exchange between French and English speakers is more an exception than a rule. . . . By Laura-Julie Perrault, a junior women's studies and international studies major from Quebec studying at U. of N.C.
The Monarchist League of Canada: http://www.monarchist.ca/
Column 22: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~8ad5/column22.htm Clinton saga highlights benefits of constitutional monarchy. See his home page for interesting conservative links:
Adam Daifallah Online!: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~8ad5/ Has many links, including: Ontario PC Campus Association -- the campus affiliate of the Ontario PC Party (I am president). We promote Mike Harris on Ontario's colleges and universities.
Freedom Party of Ontario (CANADA) - Consent 15 - Jan-Feb 1992: http://www.freedomparty.org/cons15_3.htm "God Save The Queen" - AND THE REST OF US!
Many Ontarians have sensed something sinister about the Rae government's recent dropping of the allegiance to the Queen by police officers. Unfortunately, few have been able to identify the source of their fears --- fears which are well-founded since the issue at stake is far more significant than we have been led to believe, or perhaps, find difficult to believe. Indeed, the change of allegiance is yet another tragic reminder that the Rae government is intent on ruling, and not on governing.
Even though I could never call myself a "monarchist," I'm on side with the "monarchists" on this issue . . . .
Next City: http://www.nextcity.com/WhatIf/whatif15.htm What would happen if . . . Canada abolished the monarchy? Arguments pro and con.
ThroneOut - the British Anti Monarchy and Republican site: http://www.throneout.com/ (Previously termed The Truth about the British Monarchy) . . . some of the extra-marital activities of our Queen and her family. We urge people to write to their MPs asking that the Royal Family submit to DNA tests, to prove their right to their hereditary positions and to put an end to these stories once and for all. . . .
Orange Order: http://www.reach.net/~blackknt/lo00003.htm . . .The defence of the Protestant religion and the maintenance of civil and religious liberties was, is, and always will be the pre-eminent duty of the Orange Fraternity. " The Protestant Religion and the Liberties of England, I will maintain" was inscribed on the pennant on the ship that bore William to England, . . .
"The Glory of God, The Welfare of Man, The Honour of his Sovereign, and the Good of his Country should be the motives of all his actions."
Society of St. George: http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/danbrown/callarms.html The Monarchy in Canada. The Society of St. George strongly supports the Canadian Monarchy. . . .
SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT: http://www.saudiembassy.net/publications/magazine-fall-96/sysgov.htm Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Guardian A challenge to the crown now is the time for change: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4101153,00.html A challenge to the crown: now is the time for change. Law on succession to throne may be incompatible with Human Rights Act. Clare Dyer, legal correspondent, Dec 6, 2000. The Guardian.
The Guardian is to back a legal challenge to the 300-year-old law banning Roman Catholics and other non-Protestants from succession to the British throne, on the grounds that it clashes with the Human Rights Act and should be reinterpreted or removed from the statute book.
Leading human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC believes the Act of Settlement 1701 may be affected by the European convention on human rights, which became part of UK law two months ago when the Human Rights Act came into force. . . .
Includes the following, which has many links:
Guardian Unlimited Special reports Special report the future of the monarchy: http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/monarchy/
Monarchy Out! Democracy Page: http://monarchyout.members.easyspace.com/democracy.html
Monarchy Free Canada: http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/ Top Cabinet Ministers support replacing Queen with a Canadian Head of State.
May 18, 2001 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley says the monarchy is out of date and Canadians would do better with an elected head of state instead. Industry Minister Brian Tobin defends him by saying scrapping the monarchy is a subject that must be addressed openly.
(Editor's Note - Testament to how archaic the monarchy is, standing Order 18 prevents members of Parliament from uttering any words in the House or Senate that would either oppose the interests of the monarch or embarrass the monarchy.
Also at this site:
Canada's monarchy has served us well for over 130 years - why tamper with it?: http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/why_change.htm
Many good links.
Prospects for a Canadian head of state: http://modena.intergate.ca/personal/fixer/butler1.htm
But Canada's political system, rife as it is with cronyism, corruption, favoritism and anti-democratic institutions, is increasingly at odds with continental economic realities. As a result, our standard of living is falling, the value of our dollar is eroding, and we seem to be in a perpetual battle to maintain unimpeded access to the U.S. market, without which Canada could not exist. At some point it must become clear that our parliamentary system, with the British crown at its top, no longer works -- if, indeed, it ever did. . . .
REPUBLIC - Campaign for an Elected Head of State: http://www.republic.org.uk/ Good material and links.
The Guardian: http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/979ref.html Republic: the struggle will continue. The Guardian Nov 10, 1999. The 54.7 percent "NO" vote in last Saturday's republic referendum was a set-back for the Australian nation and the result of cynical manipulation and opportunism by those political forces bent on chaining Australia to its colonial past. . . .
How We Believe, by Michael Shermer: http://www.nehrlich.com/book/howwebelieve.html Review of, and detailed links to, the book How we Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science by Michael Shermer. See also . . .
Books How and Why People Believe in God: http://www.realitynewsonline.com/article1071.html?printable=y Books: How and Why People Believe in God: reviewed by by David Bloomberg. Why do people believe in God? Or in miracles and other similar occurrences? Look at this investigation of why and, more importantly, how people believe.
Michael Shermer, a professor of the history of science at Occidental College in California and Director of the Skeptics Society, wants to understand religion. To be more specific, he is interested in how and why people come to their beliefs and how those beliefs develop and shape their thoughts and actions.
. . . has written a new book examining the topic. How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (W.H. Freeman and Company) is his look at what people believe, why they believe it, and even why some people think other people believe certain things. . . .
At the same time, maybe there is irrationality behind some beliefs; maybe it is even programmed into human beings. Shermer's examination takes him outside of purely religious areas and into all sorts of beliefs, including psychic power, creationism, millennialism, talking to the dead, the "Bible Code," and "miraculous" appearances of the Virgin Mary or Jesus on the side of a building or on a tortilla.
He explains that humans are pattern-seekers by nature. This is a result of our evolutionary past. Some of these patterns, he says, take on a spiritual link because people may make more of them than they should. This goes for everything from baseball players who superstitiously insist on the same routine to gamblers who blow on dice for good luck. Is it irrational to see a pattern where there is none? Perhaps. But it may have served our ancestors better than missing a pattern where one existed.
Throughout this book, Shermer approaches the issue of religious belief to examine it in the same way scientists look at so many other subjects. Despite his own lack of belief, or perhaps because of it, he is able to take an objective look at this issue that lies at the heart of so much that is human.
UT1 - Publications CONSTITUTION AND RELIGION: http://www.univ-tlse1.fr/publications/Colloques/Constitution/Robbers.html Prof. Dr. Gerhard Robbers, University of Trier, Germany. . . .
From a legalistic point of view, one can mark three different systems of the relationship between state and religious bodies.
1 - England 2 - the Nordic states 3 - Greece 4 - Switzerland
Some kind of opposite is a strict separation between state and religious bodies.
1 - United States of America
Strict separation between religious bodies and the state is one of the main traits of the constitutional thinking in the US concerning religion. State subsidies to religion is regarded as an infringement to religious freedom. Aiding one religious body in its activities would be regarded as discrimination against other religious bodies, which do not receive such aid. This can lead in effect to a discrimination of religion as such against other activities exercised within society.
2 - France
3 - Ireland
The Irish constitution prohibits any financial state aid to religious bodies. The only exception is to private, religiously run schools. The example of Ireland, however, shows how the legalistic point of view does not always represent the main and most important traits of a system. Ireland is a predominantly, over-whelmingly catholic country with intense influence of the catholic church into most parts of social life. Although not mentioned in the constitution, one could, from a sociological point of view, count Ireland in the state church systems.
Systems in between the two are based on separation with different degrees of co-operation. We may count in these systems Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium. The main characteristic of this system is, that the constitution takes religious bodies as a given and positive phenomenon of social life. The state does not interfere in principal with internal matters of religious bodies. Autonomy of religious bodies is a center-piece of the legal framework. Thus religious bodies are to a large extent free from general laws as far as they would interfere with their religious needs. In Germany, for example, exemptions from labour laws, bankruptcy laws, staff-codetermination laws, data protection law. Of course, the state does not interfere with religious creeds and cult matters. On the other hand, the state freely and deliberately aids the needs of religious life. An example may be the financing of churches. In Belgium you find ample direct contributions to religious bodies. In Germany there is a system of a church based church tax. In Spain and Italy taxpayers have the possibility of adjudicating a certain amount of their tax to religious bodies. . . .
Republic Versus Monarchy: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/rep3.htm#religious A MONARCHY BUILT ON RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
Guardian Unlimited Columnists Rites and wrongs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,257166,00.html Polly Toynbee. Oct 29, 1999. The Guardian. We have just done away with the hereditary peers. Now we should face up to the need for a secular state.
The Unsettling Act: http://www.orangenet.org/lois/Unsettling/replacing.htm Why such a fuss over the act of settlement? Replacing one discrimination with another.
Easily the most compelling argument for scrapping the Act of Settlement is that it is discriminatory. It debars the monarch from being a Roman Catholic or from marrying one.
On the face of it, this seems outrageous in this modem era. So it's hardly surprising that calls for repeal strike a chord with anxious politicians and the liberal media. Condoning "bigotry" is hardly a smart career move in these politically correct times. Unfortunately for all these well-meaning reformists, their zeal for repeal has clouded their view of the discrimination that would apply to any future Roman Catholic monarchy.
"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" would be rigorously enforced by Canon Law 1125, the infamous "mixed marriage" demands. Where Britain's Act of Settlement proscribes a Roman Catholic monarch, the Church of Rome's Canon Law 1125 would proscribe a Protestant monarch! With the Act of Settlement removed, any future British monarch marrying a Roman Catholic would be bound by Canon Law to ensure that any Royal children were raised as Roman Catholics.
By the rigorous application of Canon Law, a perpetual Protestant monarchy would become a perpetual Roman Catholic one! So, an obvious question for the well-meaning liberal reformists is this: What is the difference between the religious discrimination of the Act of Settlement and the religious discrimination of Canon Law 1125? . . .
News for Sun Nov 5,
2000: http://www.angelfire.com/wy/royalflush2/2000nov5.html Catholics
to regain right to the throne (Electronic
Telegraph). THE ban on
Roman Catholics ascending the English throne is certain to be
overturned because it does not comply with the new Human Rights
Act, according to leading lawyers.
The ban breaches two of the convention's 14 provisions, the
lawyers say, and a legal challenge from the Scottish National
Party is already being prepared. The relevant sections are article 12, which gives everyone the
right to marry whoever he or she wants, and article 14, which says that it is the right of everyone
not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. The convention came into force on
October 2.
Neil Addison, a leading human rights barrister who has launched a
number of successful actions under the new convention, said:
"The Act
of Settlement clearly breaches the Human Rights Act. Any legal challenge would be
successful. If Prince Charles or Prince William want to marry a
Catholic they clearly have the right to do so under the Human
Rights Act."
The 1701 Act of Settlement prohibits the heir to the throne
becoming a Catholic before ascending to the throne, or marrying a
Catholic, but does not rule out marriage to a member of any other
faith. It was drawn up to ensure a Protestant succeeded to the
throne in the aftermath of the revolution that saw the Catholic
James II overthrown by his Protestant daughter Mary and her
husband William in 1688.
If the Act of Settlement had to be altered, the Queen could be
forced to take a new Coronation Oath. The 1706 Act of Union
between Scotland and England and the 1931 Statute of Westminster
which established the modern Commonwealth would also need to be
altered.
The Government does not want to precipitate an immediate change
because it would involve altering these pieces of legislation.
The Telegraph has learned that the Home Office has ditched much of a report on
religious discrimination which it commissioned from Derby
University
because it recommended similar sensitive reforms to the monarchy.
Ministers are, however, bracing themselves for a legal challenge
which is almost certain to succeed and would force them to act.
Guardian A challenge to the crown now is the time for change: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4101153,00.html Law on succession to throne may be incompatible with Human Rights Act. Clare Dyer, legal correspondent. Dec 6, 2000. The Guardian. The Guardian is to back a legal challenge to the 300-year-old law banning Roman Catholics and other non-Protestants from succession to the British throne, on the grounds that it clashes with the Human Rights Act and should be reinterpreted or removed from the statute book. . . . Links.
Newspaper challenges Royal rule: http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20001206/britain/02royal.shtml ITN.
A national newspaper has launched a legal challenge under the new Human Rights Act to stop the ban on Catholics succeeding to the throne. The Guardian is also claiming that an ancient clause of the Treason Act, which forbids republicanism, should also be outlawed.
The Act of Settlement and the Treason Felony Act both enshrine the role of the Royal Family within the constitution.
But challenges to both will be made by Geoffrey Robertson QC as he argues that the acts contravene human rights laws.
The Act of Settlement bars non-Protestants (particularly Catholics), adopted children and people born to unmarried parents from succeeding to the throne. . . .
'Multi-faith
Coronation' for Charles: http://www.british-israel-world-fed.ca/PEFile15.html From
The Weekly Telegraph No. 455 of April 12 - 18, 2000. THE
PRINCE of Wales could be crowned King in a multi-faith
inauguration service rather than the 1,000-year-old Coronation
ceremony, under proposals to tackle "religious
discrimination" being considered by the Government. A report
commissioned by Jack Straw claims that the establishment of the
church of England causes "religious disadvantage" to
other faiths.
The Coronation oath, conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
in which the monarch swears to uphold the Protestant faith, may
no longer be appropriate in modern Britain, it says.
The sovereign's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England
and "Defender of the Faith" should also be reviewed.
The paper, an interim report on religious discrimination, puts
disestablishment of the Church of England on the government's
agenda for the first time.
Tony Blair has always shied away from the issue .
. . Links.
Church-State Conflict Issue Raised In England: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000605c.htm Maranatha Christian Journal. . . . The thorny issue of whether Britain should remain an officially Protestant country has been raised by a new government report commissioned to study religious discrimination in all its guises, including the effect of state religious ceremonies on other faiths.
The report -- welcomed by Muslims calling for an end to religious discrimination -- argues that the special role reserved for the established Church of England puts other faiths at a disadvantage. And it makes the case for severing the connection between the state, the monarchy and the Church. . . .
Van Impe Intelligence Briefing June, 2000 falling.html: http://www.jvim.com/IntelligenceBriefing/june2000/falling.html DEATH OF CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN PREDICTED. The London Independent reported: "Holy Week has begun with an expert prediction that the Christian church in this country will be dead and buried within 40 years. It will vanish from the mainstream of British life, with only 0.5 per cent of the population attending the Sunday services of any denomination, according to the country's leading church analyst...All claims that Britain is a Christian nation will finally have to be given up, says the church attendance specialist, Peter Brierley...The dwindling band of worshippers has grown used to gloomy predictions, but these are the worst yet. Church attendance will be 'at an all-time low' in 40 years' time, says Steps to the Future, published by the Scripture Union. Around 40 per cent of the population will have some kind of belief, though a third of them will practice non-Christian religions..." . . .
Senior clergymen believe the next coronation cannot take the same form as the last ceremony, in 1953, when the Queen pledged to 'preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England'. The Prince of Wales has made clear that he wants to be the 'defender of faiths' rather than the 'defender of the faith', in order to reflect the number of religions practiced in Britain."
Discrimination against Catholics?: http://www.camrecon.demon.co.uk/page6.htm
Why should the constitution be changed to allow a Roman Catholic to be the consort of the monarch, or the monarch to be a Roman Catholic?
The people who propose this change are coming at the problem from the wrong angle. It is deemed to be discrimination against Catholics, and as all students of history are aware religious discrimination was rampant throughout Europe in the middle ages. However, one is bound to ask, was religious discrimination limited to the middle ages? Another valuable question is, why has the Vatican consistently taken the opposing side to the British people so often?
Ever since the signing of the Magna Carta (which the Vatican branded as a heinous act by the aristocracy, the bishops, and King John) the Romish Church has taken a stance opposed to the emerging United Kingdom. It is history to recall the papal blessing given to the attempted invasion by Phillip of Spain via the Armada. It is also history to recall the attempted assassination of Queen Elizabeth by Vatican agents. When King James authorised the translation of the Holy Bible into the English language, it was greeted with contemptuous scorn by the papacy. Indeed the murder of a number of the translators of the scriptures was at the hands of catholic agents. The revolt of 1745, was primarily to place a catholic monarch on the British throne once more.
Moving on to the nineteenth century, who attempted to crown Napoleon as Emperor of the 'holy' Roman Empire in Rheims Cathedral (I believe), it was the elected president of the papal states. Next comes the blood-bath of the twentieth century. Which 'religious' leader was strengthening ties with Kaiser Wilhelm, through the offices of one Eugelio Pacelli? Pontifex Maximus, again! Move on twenty years, which head of state concluded a concordat with Nazi Germany? Then when Eugelio Pacelli is enthroned, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War, and the nature of Adolf Hitler's Germany is recognised -- why was this concordat not revoked? Despite a few weasel words that concordat remained in full force and effect until December 1947, a year-and -a-half after the end of the war in Europe -- the Vatican Rat-lines were still whisking war criminals to Argentina!
So, do we still believe that the Vatican can change its spots? With the re-unification of Germany in 1989, the German diplomatic offensive in the former Yugoslavia began. In 1990, despite opposition from the rest of Europe, the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, both Germany and the Vatican recognised Slovenia and Croatia. Thus precipitating the civil wars in Yugoslavia. Why would the Vatican take such a step? Slovenia and Croatia are predominantly catholic. Indeed during the Second World War some 244,000 Serbs were forcibly converted to Catholicism at bayonet point! Added to this, in the Jacenovac concentration camp, a minimum of 700,000 perished. All this under the Croatian regime of Ante Pavelic, with whom the Vatican (through Bishop Stepinac - who was beatified by president Karol Wojtyla of the Vatican in 1988) conducted a relationship which was of the closest type of alliance.
The Vatican is an animal which thinks in terms of centuries, and of world domination. It has used men such as Charlemagne, who waded through blood to spread the 'faith', followed by a selection of some of this world's most depraved names.
David Yallop wrote a really insightful book into the inner workings of the Vatican, titled "In God's Name", I would strongly advise everybody to read it. Then if you really want to know what the European Union is all about follow that by reading Adrian Hilton's book, "The Power and Principality of Europe". I promise you, you will be unpleasantly surprised. To round that off, just to give you a truly bitter taste in the mouth, try Christopher Booker and Richard North's book "Castle of Lies". This latter book has only one draw back, the authors have not recognised the Vatican involvement in Europe. As they state Europe is not political. Their answer is that it is psychological. In reality it is neither - it is religious.
If this appalling measure to allow the monarch or his consort to be a catholic is ever enacted, we will all see our freedoms, so hard won -- often with the shedding of anglo-saxon-celtic blood -- lost. Too soon the Code Napoleon, and all the other trappings of the catholic fascist Europeans will be laid upon the British peoples. We are not basically European in outlook, because since Henry VII shook off the papacy (admittedly as a result of his desire to divorce his wife) we have been free of the deadening hand of the Roman Curia (the catholic governing body).
We would also have to accept such wonderful doctrines as :-- The Immaculate Conception (of Mary) which became catholic dogma as long ago as 1854!, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary -- that is despite the fact that all five male children which she bore are named in scripture, plus the fact that these sons had sisters. All very strange! Then of course there are all these statues in catholic churches. Whatever happened to the commandment against idolatry? Especially when the Apostle Paul stated quite clearly that "covetousness is as the sin of idolatry" We have here a 'faith' which absorbs and assimilates the beliefs of all and sundry. In Latin America, for example, Inca 'gods' became catholic saints. Added to which is the fact that the present incumbent of the seat of peter, has been sent a million or more signatures of the faithful who want to have Mary deified, as part of the Godhead. So now we will have to have some parts of scripture rewritten, to allow for a Quadrility -- instead of a Trinity!
It is hardly surprising that until the Coronation of King Edward VII that the Coronation Oath contained a clause to keep this land free from "catholic superstition".
I hope that you have taken the time to read this. I do not believe that I am a bigot -- but how many bigots do? Check out these items which I have presented as facts, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and the Bible. You may be amazed. Regards, Ian Munro
Leader Expects Church Of England To Cut Ties With State: http://www.cwnews.com/browse/2000/04/12683.htm Catholic World News — News Brief. . . . Anglican Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury said this weekend he expects the Church of England will eventually be disestablished as the official state church. . . . A spokesman for the Church of England said the archbishop had not changed his position. "There's no call for it (disestablishment)," the spokesman, the Rev. Bill Beaver, said.
Catholic spokesman dispels concerns over Anglican Archbishop's appointment as G-G: http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/104/86.asp
Democracy Secular and Sacred - Eutopia: http://eutopia.cua.edu/article.cfm?ID=5&Page=3 Eutopia is a student-run journal of Catholic thought which seeks to address contemporary and controversial topics in Catholicism from a perspective that is loyal to the teaching of the Church. Eutopia is produced by graduate and undergraduate students of the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.
. . . showing the fundamental difference in nature between the French Revolution and the American founding. Recognizing the essential difference between these historical events is fundamental to putting to rest the suspicion of those who believe that American democracy is by nature at odds with the Faith.
While the question at hand is the legitimacy of American democracy, the Church's teaching on politics focuses on a much larger phenomenon the aftermath of the Enlightenment in Europe. The two most troubling features of the dissolution of the ancien regime for the Church as well as for anti-modernists are the abolition (or delimitation) of monarchies in favor of popular sovereignty and the disestablishment of official state religion.
. . . First, while the Church has certainly had her share of conflicts with monarchs, she has never condemned monarchy as an illegitimate form of government. . . . no one is surprised that the Church unrelentingly condemned those political movements that viewed secularization of the state as the only acceptable recourse to the established old order. . . .
Sweden2000: http://www.hrwf.net/English/sweden2000.html Church of Sweden is thriving on its own. . . . For more than four centuries, to be Swedish was to be Lutheran. Every newborn here was automatically registered as a member of the Church of Sweden, the official Lutheran denomination. The marriage between church and state was so strong that it took an act of parliament to change the prayer book and bishops were chosen by the cabinet . . .
The leap of faith the Swedish government made last New Year's day was to "disestablish" the Church of Sweden, pulling the plug on guaranteed public subsidies and government control over a faith that maintains a church in virtually every city and hamlet.
Also dispensed with: an official
religion in the palace. The
Swedish monarch was not the head of the church but was required
to be a member. Now the monarch may be of any faith.
A year later, church leaders say that the separation they feared
has been a blessing. . . .
God and the Republic - culture@home: http://www.anglicanmediasydney.asn.au/cul/Sowada.htm God and the Republic was a paper delivered at "The Trinity in Australia Today" Conference at Robert Menzies College, Macquarie University 8 July 1998. In early February 1998, one of the most significant political events of this decade took place in Canberra. The Constitutional Convention, known colloquially as the ConCon, convened for two weeks, drawing together people from around the country to discuss three questions relating to Australia's future. The questions, set by the Commonwealth Government were these: Should Australia become a republic, and if so, what would be the appropriate form, and when should this occur? . . .
Conclusion
. . . there was no unanimity among Christians on the question of retaining the current constitutional monarchy or moving to a republic. This reflects my contention that there is no specific Biblical guidance on the question . . .
But we should be grateful that God is still in the Constitution. [The Anglicans still do not want to give up this form of religious discrimination!] The task for us as Christians is to continue to gently and humbly explain to the community that this God, a sovereign God, demands more of us personally and as a community than simple lip service.
Copyright Anglican Media Sydney 1998 - 2001
Protestant View: http://home.rednet.co.uk/homepages/fpchurch/EbBI/fpm/2001/January/article11.htm Website of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The Act of Settlement.
Early in December The Guardian newspaper began a campaign to make the United Kingdom a republic. The first object in its sights was the Act of Settlement of 1701, which was brought in to prevent a Roman Catholic monarch ever again sitting on the British throne following the disastrous experience of the recent past.
The Scottish Nationalist Party have tabled a motion in the Westminster parliament calling for repeal of the Act. They claim this is part of their fight against religious discrimination in our constitution. But since when did Rome forswear religious discrimination? [Never!] Even supposing the British monarch was to marry a Roman Catholic, the children of that union would have to be brought up as Roman Catholics. This is, to put it mildly, obviously unsatisfactory. . . .
A little more understanding of history and of the nature of the whole Roman system would surely encourage politicians to leave this Act firmly in place. [In other words, why replace one form of religious discrimination by another one (Roman church) which is even much worse?]
Apparent Backtracking by the Pope.
It would seem to some that the Pope has gone back somewhat on that part of the recent Vatican declaration Dominus Iesus which stated that other Christian faiths were "gravely deficient" as a means of salvation and that only the Roman Catholic Church possesses the "fulness of grace and truth".
The Daily Telegraph summarises, in its own words, the Pope's new position: "Heaven is open to all as long as they are good". The Pope declared that "all the just on earth, including those who ignore Christ and his Church" were "called upon to build the Kingdom of God".
Having examined the Telegraph report and also a fuller report given out by a Roman Catholic agency, we see that the Pope's words are riddled with ambiguities and have in no way disannulled the papal dogma that the only way to salvation is through the Church of Rome.
Adopting non-Christian Rites.
Commenting on its advances in the first Christian millennium, American theologian W G T Shedd wrote, "The Papal Church once sought to make Christianity a universal religion by adopting pagan rites and ceremonies". And Rome has never lost its willingness to incorporate non-Christian elements into its teachings and ceremonies.
Another report spoke of how a Roman "Catholic archbishop in South Africa has called for animal sacrifice to be incorporated into church services. . . . a priest blessing chickens and goats during mass. The animals were then slaughtered and their sacrificial blood poured into a hole dug outside the church.
"In a papal document drawn up at the close of the African synod in Rome in 1995, the idea of integrating indigenous religious practices was cautiously welcomed by the Vatican. But the Pope stressed that the process must be compatible with 'the Christian message and communion with the universal Church'." The fact is that the process cannot be compatible with the Christian message. But then a very great deal of Rome's teaching has never been compatible with the Christian message. Some things never change
Church & monarchy: http://www.antichrist.com.au/2000/0004/0004royal.html 666 the antichrist's almanac 2000 ONLINE EDITION.
"And with the guts of the last priest let us strangle the last king." -- Denis Diderot (1713-1784), French philosopher.
"Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest" Emile Zola.
Anglicans to lose their royal head? Anglican Church (UK).
On 16 April, 2000, British church attendance specialist, Dr Peter Brierley, announced that the Christian Church will be dead in 40 years time.
This coincided with a study suggesting the Anglican Church's link with the monarch and state may have to be severed before the Prince of Wales is crowned king.
According to sources, British home secretary Jack Straw commissioned the report from a University of Derby research unit.
The unit was asked to look at whether religious discrimination against individuals was present in work, school and society.
An interim report questioned the "historically rooted religious disadvantage" suffered by other faiths and denominations in an increasingly diverse culture.
It also suggested that the 1,000-year-old Coronation ceremony may no longer be appropriate . . .
Catholic spokesman dispels concerns over Anglican Archbishop's appointment as G-G: http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/104/86.asp . . . "If he did not resign as Archbishop of Brisbane some question might arise as to how he can fulfil two separate offices," he continued. "And that might create some question of whether or not one office, the church office, interferes with the state office. . . .
Economic efficiency
Presidential Systems Of Government Mean Less Public Spending Than Parliamentary: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2051PR.htm Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
On Line Opinion Mar-Apr 2000 Bryan Palmer outlines the Palmer model for a Republic: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/March00/Palmer.htm A Real Head of State. Like many Australians, I find little relevance in an absent and foreign monarch. There should be no place in Australia's democratic and egalitarian society for the notions of primogeniture, sexual discrimination and religious discrimination inherent in the succession of the throne. The mood of the nation is clear. In all of the opinion polls most Australians would prefer an Australian head of State to the monarchy.
In spite of this mood the November 1999 republican referendum failed, primarily because the republicans were divided whereas the monarchists were united in their opposition to change. Tragically, the republicans were divided over a trifling and inconsequential detail, whether the new head of State should be appointed or elected. . . .
The model is based on minimal changes to the text of the Constitution. It establishes a fully republicanised Federal Westminster parliamentary system of government. It eliminates the need for a pretend, non-executive head of State. It retains the safeguard of the reserve powers. It can be achieved along the following lines: . . .
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca