- - Endorsed
- - Indifferent
- - Contested
|The Nashville Statement
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
| The Christian Heritage Party of Canada
|Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" - preamble, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982).
Most Canadians remember that in and around 1982 we, as a nation, became in some vague way less dependent on England and her Queen with regards to how we, as a nation, govern ourselves. The average Canadian is by and large ignorant of Canadian history, and especially so when that history is political in content.
The thought expressed in the quoted preamble above, became part of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, but was originally expressed in 1958 as a federal statute: The Canadian Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights received royal assent in 1960 and is still
in effect today. In that bill we read:
"The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;" - Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960
Because Constitutional rights trump federal statutes in a court of law (i.e. legislative law trumps federal law), it was important to have a constitutional charter of rights, over and above a federal bill of rights, should a matter need to be decided by higher courts (and this was not an uncommon thing). What I want to note here, is that in both the 1960 bill, and in the 1982 Constitutional Amendment acknowledge the supremacy of God as a principle upon which the nation of Canada was founded. These statements were intended to answer the question of authority.
Where did they get the moral authority to say such and such is a human right? The answer is in the preamble: they regarded God as a higher authority than man, and as such, they
conformed (in part at least) their rule of law (with regards to rights and freedoms) to what God says about these matters.
Fact: John Deifenbaker, the primary drafter of the 1960 Bill of Rights, was a Canadian Baptist. I think it is safe to assume that when Deifenbaker wrote about God's supremacy, he was referring to the God of the Christian scriptures. Likewise, in order to defer to God's authority, it must be known what God has said. That is, I expect (and I think it is unreasonable not to think this way) that Deifenbaker, in appealing to God's authority in such moral matters, was appealing to what scripture claims concerning these matters.
What I have done, in case you arn't following closely, is show that the authorial intent of the original drafter of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights was to claim the authority of scripture in forming Canadian rights. The text and flow of the 1960 Bill of Rights was transplanted into the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (though not without some tweaking), and along with it, the roots of that original authorial intent. Which is to say, that if someone wanted to argue that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as included in Part I of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 looked to the scriptures of the Christian bible for its authority, they would have, at the very least, a leg to stand on.
The Christian Heritage Party of Canada, or the "CHP" as they have recently re-branded themselves, is a Canadian Political Party that makes a lot of this preamble. Consider this from their home page:
The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life, pro-family federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the principles of the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution,
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
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.
That's awesome, but somewhat of an incomplete/immature thought, though that might be intentional.
Brushing past all the fluff, what is being asserted here is an argument that goes like this: If the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms derives its moral authority from the testimony of God as witnessed in the Christian Scriptures, then this same Charter must uphold the human rights of the unborn.
I think that's a very fair argument - it is saying that you cannot on the one hand appeal to the supremacy of God as your moral authority in these matters, then deny that same Witness by denying rights to the unborn when scripture clearly refers to the unborn as people from the moment of conception.
The reason I say that the thought is a little incomplete, or perhaps just immature, is because it fails to frame itself in the context of what it is really saying. Perhaps the CHP assumes a common knowledge in the reader that
simply isn't there? I don't know. Maybe I am wrongly presuming, but I think that the average reader is going to read that and interpret it to mean that they are  calling themselves the only political party that recognizes the supremacy of God, and  that this belief in the supremacy of God is in fact part of Canada's collective heritage.
Now, I don't know about you, but when someone speaks to me about my heritage, I am not looking back to things that happened in the tenth grade (1982 for me). I am looking back at the founders of my nation, I am looking back to confederacy under British Rule, and the events that brought us to that. Consider this brief history of religion in Canada. The early colonization of "New France" carried no religious restrictions, Roman Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots) settled side by side, until 1627, when the religious strife threatened to escalate into a civil war. At that time, since the Protestants showed themselves to be less inclined to royal control than the Catholics, no more Protestants were allowed to immigrate to New France (Canada) from France, and so New France remained almost exclusively Catholic until French rule was abolished in 1763 by the conquest of Canada by the British.
At that point, the Catholic only immigration policy was functionally reversed, giving all possible encouragement to the erection of protestant schools and churches to the end that the inhabitants of Canada by induced, by degree, to embrace the protestant religion.
At that time the British offered free land to British loyalist living in the US - and through this, the population of Canada was suddenly inundated with more protestants. In 1792, Parliament of Great Britain passed a Constitutional Act to provide for the administration
of the province of Quebec, which now was home to many British subjects who had fled the US on account of the war of independence. The Act separated the province of Quebec into upper and lower Canada - a division that was primarily a division between English speaking British protestants, and French speaking Roman Catholics, or, as we see it today, between Ontario (British) and Quebec (French).
By 1850, (16 years before confederacy), Most of Canadians were either Catholic or Protestant; By 1867, it would be fair to say, that Canada was a nation that, on the whole, regarded the Christian Bible as authoritative, though higher criticism and Darwinism were
already eroding the notion of God's word as an objective standard.
The question then, when we use a phrase such as Christian Heritage, in the venue of Canadian Policy, we must ask, which Christian Heritage? The Roman Catholic Heritage, or the Protestant Heritage? Are we talking about the low or high ebb of these various heritages? Presumably, since confederation took place in 1867, and because we are talking about Christian heritage, as it pertains to governance and policy in Canada, it seems reasonable to conclude that we are talking about British Protestantism. Given that the first six Prime Ministers were all Protestants, I think our conclusion is demonstrated to be true.
Why the boring history lesson? The lesson is to say that I am aware that Canada does have a Christian Heritage; I am aware that those who eventually confederated this nation were Protestants (what we would call "Evangelical Christians" today), and that if we are going to talk about Canada's Christian Heritage, we are likely going to be talking about what influence
Evangelical thought had in forming the policies and governance of Canada.
When we speak of the US founding fathers, we are speaking of actual founding fathers. There was a war of independence that ended with a group of people having to define themselves apart from any previous definition. The founding fathers of the US had to form a government from scratch, inheriting nothing, even as they innovated and borrowed according to whatever wisdom and light they had at the time. Canada however did not have a war of independence. Our government was not formed by the people who originally governed us. When Canada was confederated, we inherited a system of government from our (then) sovereign nation Britain. It wasn't as if we a group of men, mostly Christians, sat down and newly invented a form of government that drew from their own (mostly)
Christian faith and morality.
To be sure the 1689 English Bill of Rights, does not draw its authority from God, but rather from the throne of England. That means that when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms looks to the supremacy of God, it isn't following the traditions that founded our nation, but in introducing a new tradition, ostensibly injected into the Canadian mainstream by Deifenbaker, though assented to by the Queen, in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.
So why all that?
Well, when I read the front page of the CHP website, I find the equating of their policy to my Christian heritage a bit misleading. They represent their platform as though there was some
political Christian heritage that previously set the matter in antiquity, and present themselves as clinging alone to what was, and is in danger of being lost. When in reality they seem to simply be a Christian party, with a narrow agenda, co-opting one line in a
very recent Constitutional Amendment for the sake of painting their agenda as  Christian, and  historical, as though Christianity itself was our heritage, and not the recent amendment preamble upon which the door of their platform appears to be swinging.
Having said all that, this is a very small, politically insignificant party. I doubt there is anyone in the party whom I would consider more conservative or biblical in their views than most of the people in my own congregation. But having flipped through their platform, it seems at once pie-in-the-sky, and childish; lacking both vision and direction while sending the entirety of their being into orbit around the idea that people are people at the moment of conception because the God of the Christian scriptures says so.
Don't get me wrong - I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and this agrees entirely with what God has said. The weight of God's word on the heart of a believer should be enough to satisfy any doubt, but truly, one need not be a believer in God, or a respecter of God's word to see that scripture is only stating what is patently true. From the moment of conception a human life is formed and grows. I believe that. And I likewise believe in the supremacy of God, and that any moral decision I will make in my life must agree with the objective morality reflected in the God of the Christian scriptures. If I were a politician, I would vote according to this same objective moral standard - because I am a Christian first, and everything else second.
What then, is my beef? Well, one of the reasons the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, rebranded themselves as the CHP is because they were experiencing some negative feedback for having the word "Christian" in their name. I don't get the sense that this party is ashamed of the name of Christ, so I don't believe they removed the name out of a desire to distance themselves from Christ's name - but rather that the name suggested the party was a ... well... a partywhose main focus was restoring a lost Christian Heritage.
The trouble was, that the idea of Christian Heritage ends up being an all to thin facade for their all Christian anti-abortion platform. Rather than change their name to match their agenda, they instead hid their name behind a three letter acronym style branding - and someone honestly thought, somewhere, that this was going to correct the floundering party image.
If you want to be a member of the party, you have to sign your name to a declaration that says that you believe that the preamble in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms is referring to the "God of the Bible" when it says, the "supremacy of God".
Think that through for a second.
Simon is a Jew. His bible is the old Testament. Maybe its just the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament)
Sue is a Mormon. Her bible is the 66 books of the Protestant Canon, plus the book of Mormon.
Zach is a Jehovah's Witness. His bible is the JW-sanitized "new world translation" plus everything ever printed by the Watchtower Society.
John is a Catholic. His bible is the 66 books of the Protestant Canon, plus seven others.
Jim is of the Greek Orthodox faith, his bible has the the 66 books of the Protestant Canon, plus twelve more
Jane, a Baptist, has only 66 books in her bible.
Mohamed is a Muslim. His bible is the Qu'ran.
When the Jew says that he believes that the supremacy of God is referring to the God of the Torah, he means that it is Not referring to Jesus.
When the Muslim says that he believes that the supremacy of God is referring to the God of the Qu'ran, he means that it is not the God of the Jews, or Jesus.
When the Jehovah's Witness says that he believes that the supremacy of God is referring to the God of Watchtower, he likewise does not mean Jesus, for Jesus is just (according to him) the angel Michael
When the Catholic/Evangelical/Orthodox says that he believes that the supremacy of God is referring to the God of the bible, they mean the God of their own bible, and only according to their own interpretation.
How then, can anyone, in good conscience, become a member of this party? Anyone who could say that the preamble to the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms is referring to the God of the "Bible", and not believe that some bible is true would be a hypocrite; so rules out all non-believers of any faith, except for the hypocrites. And anyone of any kind of faith who is willing to make a very open ended and highly ambiguous declaration concerning their faith, demonstrates that they are either so entirely liberal and ecumenical as to make no distinctions between what one person calls the bible, and what another calls the bible - or they are so undiscerning as to not notice that there is a distinction. The bottom line is that the only people who can become members are hypocrites, liberal ecumenicals, and the undiscerning and/or ignorant.
Now, why would anyone vote for someone like that?
The point of my post is not to draw attention to this however. I am sure that many of the party members are good, principled, morally upright, Christians, who probably find the whole thing as poorly thought out as it seems, but are willing to work with it for the greater good.
No, the point of my post is that I don't think this party even knows who it is trying to be. Its platform, though well meaning, seems immature, even naive. It presents itself under the cloak of Christian heritage, but really it means that little bit of heritage we have picked up in the last few decades, at least insofar as it pertains to policies concerning the unborn. In a word, the party doesn't seem comfortable in its own skin - as if it isn't sure who it is or whom it is supposed to be.
I mean, I think they haven't really decided how to get my vote. Do you appeal to the fact that you are a Christian? Do we appeal to your desire to abolish abortion? Do you try to combine those two? Do we appeal to your desire to wag whole dog of the Canadian Constitution by the tale of its one sentence preamble? What is it?
I honestly couldn't see myself voting for this party as it sits. Their platform seems to me to be a collection of ideas, some of which have merit, but none of which seem well thought out. There is certainly a morally conservative angle, but this at the unnecessary expense of a narrowness in both scope and mind.
This being my blog, I am at liberty to offer my opinion on these things in broad sense, without qualifying it - since it is only my opinion. Yet it all comes down to this for me. When I heard that the Christian Heritage Party was changing their name, I thought, to myself, of all the things they needed to change, the name was probably the least important. They need to figure out who they are going to be, and stop trying to be ten other things at the same time. When they finally figure that out, then they can pick a name that makes sense.
Labels: politics, Strong opinions
posted by Daniel @
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.
That was an excellent comment, that I concur with entirely.
Thanks for writing it.
Insert Spam deletion here.
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. "
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.
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.
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.
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])
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.
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:
 Canada was founded on those fundamental tenets that acknowledge [a] the supremacy of God and [b] the rule of law,
 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?