Does Charles III's multi-faith outlook doom the monarchy?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Anyone else think this line should go, too? I am thinking "by the will of the people through their Parliament, king..." or something like that. "By the grace of God" still leans a bit too much into divine right monarchy for my taste.

Of course, that opens some other cans of worms, like whether we should bow/curtsy to them or they should bow/curtsy to us. After all, absent the "grace of God" as the legitmizer of their power, do we owe them that kind of obeisance?
I think the change to "grace of God" is actually far worse than "defender of the faith" was, and here's why...
The first statement presupposes the existence of a God, whereas "defender of the faith" doesn't. It's his role to defend "the Faith" as in the (Church of England) but that doesn't mean God has a presupposition of existence. This is an important distinction.
Step in the wrong direction IMO
I was also PO'ed when someone decided to slip "God keep our land" (glorious and free) from just "Oh Canada" (glorious and free).
It bothers me that the trend is regression from the secular state.
 
We have always been a bit more lax about separation of church and state than the US in actual law (likely because of having a monarch "by the Grace of God"), which is why I am perpetually amazed at how badly that separation is eroding down there relative to here. We are arguably doing a better job of that separation with just the freedoms in the Charter than they are with their much-vaunted 1st Amendment.
 
We have always been a bit more lax about separation of church and state than the US in actual law (likely because of having a monarch "by the Grace of God"), which is why I am perpetually amazed at how badly that separation is eroding down there relative to here. We are arguably doing a better job of that separation with just the freedoms in the Charter than they are with their much-vaunted 1st Amendment.
With the irony being that for many years (degrading a bit I think) there was, in practice, less intervention in Canadian politics from Christian groups than there was in the US.
 
With the irony being that for many years (degrading a bit I think) there was, in practice, less intervention in Canadian politics from Christian groups than there was in the US.
They are certainly trying here, but in general, I find their pet issues get less traction with the public here and aligning too closely with them, or not being clear about their relationship with them, has hurt a few Conservative leaders in recent years. I mean, even Scheer was the obvious one, with his pussyfooting with the likes of anti-abortion groups clearly hurting him. O'Toole was actually relatively progressive himself but still stumbled on clarifying his relationship with the so-cons. And that's likely why we don't see the BS here that we are seeing in the US. Even Alberta, the most Conservative province, is still nowhere near in the same league as many Red States when it comes to so-con BS policies.
 
How does the grace of God work when applied by the representative of God here on Earth being the one heading up the common wealth so there can be poorer versions?

Thus nebulous lines are drawn ... creating considerable separation and forming alternate state of psyche; conscience and the other one!

If you support the underdog ... well expect to be criticized for demonstrating against richer leadership ... an evil from that view!

The great mystery needed a place to put this fallacy! Thus it come down ... imagine if we all lose and the Cosmos dissipates ... in a vapour as described in Freudian vapours ... nebulous stories about witches and differing kettles ... some jugs with top ends open? Could there be mores tous ide?
 
Back
Top