I just wanted there to be once comment.

 

This, then, is comment number twice.

Very interesting post, Daniel. I have recently become more interested in Canadian history, as it compared to U. S. history. I often wish our nation had been founded sans revolution. I'm not so sure our rebellion can be justified biblically. I doubt, though, that the U. S. would have become the great nation that it did (I say without apology) if it had evolved peacefully. It makes for mixed emotions.

Anyway, I have thoughts similar to yours about our religious right.

 

This was a good overview. While having sympathies for the CHP I have been reluctant to join them. I too have struggled with the inclusion of the word "Christian" as many potential members would obviously not be christian.

I am thinking that perhaps the earlier Reformed/Alliance party had the best shot of actually incorporating righteous laws into parliament; but alas they were swallowed up by the latest revision of the PC Party.

The only true hope of course for our nation is the gospel and it's tranforming power. Only then will men desire to institute godly laws. But it doesn't take a majority; only a tipping point or critical mass of individuals committed to the cause of Christ. This point has been more than adequately demonstrated by the small left wing radical parties and their aggressive promotion of immoral issues that have now become mainstream.

Wilberforce was a singular voice who changed the course of history with his unyielding efforts to abolish the slavery practice.

 

Jim,

That was an excellent comment, that I concur with entirely.

Thanks for writing it.

 

Insert Spam deletion here.

 

Hi Daniel

You've said a lot which makes less opportunity to respond without going into a seriously long post. So... In summary...

The preamble to the CCRF is stating that all of the rights and freedoms which follow hang on the truth of the preamble. Other political parties have modified this statement in their party policies to remove the source of the freedoms... the God of the Bible.

When you remove the right of our sovereign God to set laws then laws become nothing more than a decision of man which can be changed. Scripture says that God is the same today, tomorrow and forever. Therefore the laws based in in this immutable God are unchanging.

Both RC and Protestant recognise the same God and the same source of civil laws. The principles which govern the Christian Heritage Party of Canada were written by both RC & Protestant.

You have neglected a very important part of British history. The king/queen is the earthly head of the Church of England. At the top of the crown, signifying the subordination of the crown also to the laws of God, is a cross. God is thus placed above the king/queen of Britain.

You have looked at our platform and assumed that was the total of our policies. However, they are simply our platform. Our policies deal with matters from national sovereignty to the nations finances, from the military to immigration, national prosperity with all of its subcategories to law. IOW, we have policies on all matters under the federal government's mandate.

The acronym CHP has been used since the founding of our party in 1988. What is new is the term CHP Canada which lends clarity to the fact that we are federal political party. Our shortname, as it previously appeared on the ballots, was "Christian Heritage Party" The next election it will appear as "CHP Canada". We have not changed our name we have taken our most common shortname and added the last part of our legal name.

Finally, the "God of the Bible" states very clearly which God we are speaking of. Not the "god of the Qu'ran", not the "god of the Book of Mormon" We have come full circle to the God who was recognised at the founding of our nation. Both English and French recognised the "God of the Bible" This is our heritage.

 

Never Give Up.

Welcome to my blog.

You said, Other political parties have modified this statement in their party policies to remove the source of the freedoms... the God of the Bible

What is the chaff to the wheat? Until you provide a citation for this accusation, it is, at best, not worth responding to.

But let's say you're right, that someone some political party has in fact sat down and unilaterally "modified" this statement. What does that look like? Does that mean that they modified the Canadian Constitution wherein this is recorded? Well, no. So what does it mean? It means that they have some sort of local party manuscript wherein they have borrowed a text from the constitution and modified it - maybe making a banner out of the modified text and hanging it in some hallowed hall? Like I said, so what? What is the chaff of their modifications to the wheat of Constitution? What other political parties allegedly do with the constitution behind closed doors, or (if you can find a citation in print) out in the open, doesn't change the text of the constitution.

If on the other hand you have evidence that some political party rejects the constitution, and encourages others to do the same, then please, enlighten me so that I can take you more seriously.

It is one thing to cry wolf, and another to produce one.

You said, "When you remove the right of our sovereign God to set laws then laws become nothing more than a decision of man which can be changed. "
-cont-

 

-cont-
Canada is not, nor was it ever, a theocracy. I hope I am presuming upon your faith when I say that we both will agree that if God intended Canada to be a theocracy, He would set a throne in Ottawa for Himself, sit upon it, and rule. I for one would not question a single law invoked by God Almighty, the King of Canada, and Lord of all creation.

Yet, notwithstanding, God has, in His infinite purpose and wisdom, deigned to appoint men to govern this nation, in His place, but not in His name, though He reserves, as the scriptures say, the choice of whom He puts in power over us. For this reason Paul tells us to be subject to our rulers, for it is God who placed them over us- and that for our good.

You write as one who has forgotten, or perhaps has never noticed that though God does not change, yet the Mosaic covenant was superseded by the new Covenant. Previously, God's children could not eat pork. Now, under the new covenant, God's children may "rise and eat" as our Lord from heaven told Peter. Did God change? No, of course not. The laws delivered to Moses served God's purpose during the interim between Sinai and Pentecost, that is, they served as a placeholder that pointed to the coming Christ.

Notwithstanding, although God Almighty has the right to rewrite the laws of Canada, and of any nation in creation for that matter, and that had God written such laws, it would be preposterous to imagine anyone attempting to change such laws; but what does that have to do with anything??

Sure you know that God didn't write the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, nor did God write the 1960 Bill of Rights. My point, which if you reread my post should become clear to you, is that while both preambles state suggest that our rights are founded on principles which appeal to the supremacy of God for their moral authority, that is not the same as suggesting that Canadian law is based on the immutability of God.

I don't doubt that the principles which govern the CHP were authored ecumenically, as the disconnect in a lot of what I see there is easily evident from such a ox/ass yoking. I didn't ask anyone if this was so, but (apparently) correctly assumed it.

It seems funny to me that at once you confess to a mixed bag of RCs and Protestants, then charge me with neglecting to recognize the English Crown as the "earthly head of the Church of England - a church which rejected the claims of Catholicism. I chuckled at that. Thanks. No one is suggesting that at various times the English crown was justified to the people as a beneath God. In fact, it was this notion that allowed the Magna Carta, which in turn greatly limited the authority of the throne. I will save my readers the trouble of looking up the MC - it just said that the King of England had to accept the counsel of others in ruling the nation under God.

I do not (nor did I say or imply any such thing) assume that I am aware of every policy held by the CHP. What I said was that the majority of the policies that I looked at seemed half-baked, immature, unrealistic, and naive. There is a difference.
-cont-

 

-cont-
I don't doubt that the CHP used the acronym since the beginning. What I am saying is that the reason the CHP has been an abysmal failure all these years probably has more to do with other things than your label.

Finally, you are preaching to the choir when you say that the God of the bible let's us know that He is not the God of every false religion on earth. Likewise, you don't have to convince me that the God of the bible is the God that was recognized at the founding of our nation by those who founded it.

Certainly both English and French recognized the God of the bible, though they differed radically on how that same bible was to be understood, what the gospel was, how to be a Christian, and how many books ought to be called scripture.

All of this, however, has little to do with a document written only 28 years ago, that looks vaguely back at principles rather than God, even if those principles themselves looked to the supremacy of God as the moral authority from which they borrowed their claim.

 

Hi Daniel

Thanks for the welcome.

You had pointed out that the CHP website said we are the only party which endorses the preamble to the CCRF. It`s a simple statement of fact that we support it and is easily verifiable. If you think another party has endorsed it, show me the quote. Obviously, a negative cannot be proven.

But... I`ll humour you... to a point...

From the Conservative Party website...

"The Conservative Party will be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy basis by the following principles:......

A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united Canada governed in accordance with the Constitution of Canada, the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law;"

Obviously, they did not modify the CCRF that is something which they are not able to do according to the Constitution itself.

The question you presented was not whether the constitution was changed; you challenged the statement that we are the only political party which endorses the preamble to the CCRF. You mistakenly understood that we are the only party which recognises the supremacy of God. You`ve been corrected.

Nobody said that Canada was a theocracy. This is new to the discussion.

The preambles 1982/1960 do not “suggest”, they say, “Whereas” ... dictionary definition... “It being the fact that”

Magna Carta placed the monarch underneath of the law. Prior to MC the monarch did as they pleased.

Have a blessed evening.

Regards

NGU

 

NGU,

Thank you for your quick response, and interest in this matters.

Given that the constitution includes the preamble, if the Conservative party intends to be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy basis ... in accordance with the Constitution of Canada, that means in accordance with the preamble, which is included in the 1982 CCRF.

Um, where I come from, when someone says "I intend to be guided in accordance with the Constitution of Canada" - I take that as an implicit endorsement of the Constitution of Canada (preamble and all). In order to say that the progressive Party does not endorse the preamble of the Constitution, wouldn't you need to strike that "principle" from the founding principles of the Progressive party? I wonder that you call attention to it, since in doing so, you demonstrate that you are (clearly) not the only party that endorses the preamble to the CCRF.

With regards to your correction, am I to understand that after you yourself pointed to an example of another party implicitly endorsing the preamble to the CCRF, you deign to correct me for the very thing you proved me right in affirming? That seems rather irrational to me. I must not be understanding your point.

Perhaps you meant to come alongside this one remark where I said in the post:

From what I can tell, what they mean by saying this** (perhaps I am misreading them) is that they are the only party that recognizes the supremacy of God.

(** Where this refers back to the quote from the CHP website wherein we read, [...the CHP is] the only federal party that endorses the principles of the Preamble to [...the CCRF])
-cont-

 

-cont-
Now my words, put back in their context, attempt to follow the logic of the proposition found on the CHP website. Since it is both irresponsible and ridiculous to claim that the CHP is the only party that endorses the Canadian Constitution, the CHP must have meant something else. I presented what I thought to be a charitable guess: they meant to say that they were the only party that endorsed the supremacy of God.

Now, if you are correcting me, I suppose you mean by that, that the CHP does -not- endorse the Supremacy of God? It would be fun to leave that as is, but I know you are not saying that, and I will spare you having to correct me on that point.

If however, you are not saying that, then I don't really know what you could mean by that. Clearly you the party can't imagine that it is the only party that endorses the Canadian Constitution - especially since you yourself provided evidence that this is not so. So if you are going to correct me, I would ask that you tell me what is meant by the only party to endorse the preamble to the CCRF.

I agree with you that no one explicitly said that Canada was a theocracy, that was merely implied when you said, "When you remove the right of our sovereign God to set laws...." For if God makes the laws of Canada, it is implied that Canada is a Theocracy. No hocus-pocus here, just following a statement you put forward to its only logical, and therefore, inescapable conclusion, and hopefully (in doing so) demonstrating what it is in that statement that seems absurd to me.

Now, with regards to my use of the word suggest. I use that word as a kindness both to yourself and my readers, because I have a penchant for being overly verbose, and hoped in using that word that I might save myself many more. In fact, you can see the pericopic stub prior to the word suggest in the second part of my first rejoinder, where in I began with "both preambles state suggest" - had I edited my quick reply with a little more vigor, the original word "state" would have been removed and the replacement ("suggest") would have shown up without the prepend.

But allow me then to restate what I meant by the word suggest in less ambiguous language.
-cont-

 

-cont-

Both preambles put forth as a fact, the proposition that Canada was founded upon certain principles.

I have never intended to deny or argue the integrity of this statement. I regard it as a fact, to borrow from your semantic preference regarding the word "whereas" that Canada was founded on principles. Surely this is true, and no one would argue that, and my use of the word "suggest" did not mean to imply that there was any wiggle room in this regard - Canada was in fact founded on principles.

There is, to me, a subtle but significant distinction between saying that:

[1] Canada was founded on those fundamental tenets that acknowledge [a] the supremacy of God and [b] the rule of law,

and,

[2] Canada's founders acknowledged [a] the supremacy of God and [b] the rule of law.

The former says that Canadian Constitution looks to certain principles as its objective authority, and the second says the Canadian Constitution looks to God directly as its objective authority.

Now, as I love the Lord, my preference would be that our Constitution was written in such a way as to say that it draws its moral authority from the objective word of God- that God is supreme, etc. and the source of all truth, etc. and that based upon what God says in His word, these rights are blah, blah, blah. I mean, you know how that would be expressed, I hope, so I do not labor us in reiterating it.

I say, as much as I would love to have our Constitution say that, I don't believe it does. I think the constitution puts forward these subtly indistinct "principles" as our objective moral authority for the rights and freedoms the Constitution guarantees, while couching the principles themselves in a recognition that God is supreme, etc.

My suggestion therefore, does not (in my opinion) ignore the force of a word like "whereas", rather it was intended to show that the preamble suggests that its authority is drawn from some settled, but undefined, objective principles - principles which it then qualifies as recognizing two uncoupled thoughts: the first being the supremacy of God, and the second being the rule of law in general.

Thanks again for your comments.

May I say in closing that as much as I like clarifying my thoughts, and understanding yours better, is there anything you could say that would convince me to vote for these guys?