Governor General refuse to swear oath on bible
 

I can't find the article relating directly to the event in question but I did find a Letters to the Editor in the Calgary Sun today:

What really irked me is that somebody out there believes that every member of the government regardless of their position, should absolutely take the oath on the bible. I don't understand why, it's necessary for the person to swear an oath on the bible to pledge allegiance to the Queen.

Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in Section 2, Article A not state the following:

Does that mean anybody in a governmental position is excluded from that particular section of the charter? Naturally, I emailed a letter to the Sun in respond similar to above and to be perfectly blunt, the bible has no place within our democracy. I see it as a choice made by the person in question and should not be forced upon.

What's your opinion and I'm curious as to what your government does in this kind of situation. I would imagine that by now, the Americans would have figured out to ban bibles from swearing-in ceremonies after a long history of banning any religious material from the justice system.

Edit: I did find this on wikipedia, strange enough CBC or CTV doesn't have anything on this.

Wikipedia Article

Many places allow an "oath of affirmation" rather than swearing on the bible.

So some crackpout out in Alberta has a problem with it ... no big deal. There's millions more like them, but they aren't in power in this country and likely never will be.

Wish our country could say that.

I could care less about this and as much as I do care about it I applaud her ability, dispite her position to stand up for her personal beliefs.

And to those who would take the opposite position all I ask is that you consider what it would be like and how you would feel if the situation were reversed.

Really. I had a pang of jealousy when I read that.

Not the first time I've contemplated moving to Canada!

I stated this before in a different thread (can't remember which one)

If you want to swear allegiance to the Queen, you do it on a Bible. That is the protocol and that is how the ceremony is written.

If you don't want to use a Bible the ceremony quickly, quietly and with a true sense of Canadian inclusion turns to a SOLEMN DECLARATION. That mentions no religion whatsoever, and now you Solemnly Declare that you will be faithful to the Queen and Canada.

Problem solved.

One new kid getting sworn into the Army didn't like the Monarchy, and just about refused to enter because of it. We made it perfectly clear that she was our Commander-In-Chief, and if he didn't like that he could fuck off. He quietly submitted.

Its not the first time I've contemplated you moving to Canada either. :D

I take no pride in being a part of this Godless country. I believe its a national shame and something we should try to hide, not flaunt.

I take pride in being a Canadian, dont' get me wrong. But I strongly dislike our growing atheistic, gnostic state.

She might be a Christian.

Matthew 5:34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

I live in a Mennonite area, and know of many Jurors etc. who would affirm instread of swearing because of that verse.

Daoust, I don't think you have it right. This nation is hardly a "Godless country". Look around. How many churches do you see? How many people send their children to publicly funded Catholic schools?

Our nation is not the unified Christian nation it was when it was founded. We are a nation of a multitude of religious faiths and cultures. Why have our governenment hold to anyone of these (or any for that matter)?

Governments should be secular. However, there is nothing to stop the individual politicians from expressing their faith. Most speeches I see, carry some mention of God or faith (Paul Martin is a faithful Catholic). The difference between here and other nations is that our politicians do not see it as neccessary to wear their religion on their sleeve. It may infuse who they are but it does not have to be all that they are about.

I know you are a devout practicing Christian. I applaud you for convictions as much as I do the GG for hers. I should point out that, I may be an aetheist but I will be one of the first people on the front line if there is a fight to defend anyone's right to practice their religion.


Here's a question. What if the GG was a Buddhist, or a Jew, or Hindu? Why would she swear to a God in which she has no belief? I would rather have someone who was true to their beliefs than someone who merely paid lip service to a religion to please the populace.

I'll bet!

Buuuut... I guess I'll stick around the ol' USA and continue to subvert the dominant paradigm. :thumbsup:

I hear what you're saying, Charlatan, and I respect that your opinion is different than mine.
I don't believe that the sheer number of churches in our country reflect on the number of God fearing, Christians-by-practice we have here. Just because our country may still have 'religious' affiliations does not make it any more morally grounded than if it were an atheist country... and I attibute that to the 'religious' people who have not defended their faith by living it out. I am sure that statistically, Canada would be called a "Christian" country, by virtue of the higher populations of those who fall under the broad spectrum of Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, than those who fall under the umbrellas of other religions and faiths. But we are NOT a Christian country by practice.
And you, and many others applaud that, and are glad for it. Our charter of rights permits us religious freedoms, and that's a good thing.
I guess my main issue was that people are gettign upset about our GG having to perform a political ritual on a religious item, and a Christian one at that. If it WERE a Hindu Bible or a Muslim Qu'ran, or a Multi Faith Encyclopaedia, I'm positive that the GG wouldn't have minded, and much less the Canadian people at large.
I just don't think we should call ourselves a Christian nation if by and large the people of this country want nothing to do with Christ.

I'm sorry but that's crap. You know damn well that having to swear on the Qu'ran or Torah or any other religious text would cause problems as well. People like to think they're persecuted, but you know what you will be fed to the lions any time soon.

Daoust... people are upset because she *didn't* use the bible to swear into office... that should tell you something right there.

Ordinarily, the GG would have sworn in on the bible and no one would have batted an eye. If she was a Christian and believed in the power of that religion she would do well to swear on a bible. However, if she does not believe in God, why would you want her to swear on a bible? Wouldn't that be a case of trivializing Christians? Again, I would rather have someone who is firm in their beliefs rather than someone who would make an oath on something they feel holds no sway on their life.

I don't think we really need to be a Christian country by practice (I'm not sure what that would mean exactly). What I think we need to be is a secular humanist country that allows freedom of religion. Good morality and good governance need not be tied to any one religion.

I think I understand where you are coming from but the best way to fight what you see as immorality and improper living is to provide an example of what is right. Whether someone takes an oath on a religious item is entirely beside the point.


As for your final comment, I think you are mistaken... if she had have sworn on some other religion icon, there would have been an outcry that would have drowned out the noise made by those who claimed she was a seperatist.

Can you clarify the meaning of this statement, please?

Also:
"She's not going to swear on the Bible because she is not practising herself, so it would show a lack of respect to the people who have faith."

Did Jean's rep say this?

Nobody calls Canada a Christian nation.

Maybe in the past, maybe in certain parts of the land and in certain social circles, but Canada is certainly not a Christian nation.

I have never called it that, and I have never heard it referred to that, before this post. Where do you get that statement from?

We are multicultural, plain and simple. With that comes multidenominationalism (wtf? Did I just invent a new word?).

I don't think we should call ourselves a Christian Nation.

*sigh*
Sorry. I typed to fast and didn't proofread.
My point was that you will not be fed to the lions anytime soon, so lose the persecution complex. I understand if you do not like the fact that x form of Christianity no longer has as much direct control of government (frankly you can still argue this point, but that's more of a special interest group arguement).
Why don't you look at it like this... The GG is neutral to all religions. No one has any true advantage, but more importantly no one has an immediate disadvantage.

What happens if your thought becomes the dominant paradigm?

Because there was never a need to.

Its only when Christianity comes under attack like it has been that you see people get defensive about it.

Was the Governor General's refusal to swear on the bible an exampe of Christianity under attack?

Yes..........(now its long enough)

I for one am glad she stood up for what she believed in, who really gives a rats ass if she gets sworn in on the bible or green eggs and ham, it's a book, not every member of government is going to believe the same thing. As for this being an attack on christianity, give me a break, I'm sick of this over sensetive world we live in where people piss and moan over every little thing. That is the end of my rant.

Do all expressions of belief different from Christianity qualify as examples of Christianity under attack?

Care to expand on that? Saying her actions are an "attack on Christianity" is like saying, taking the vow with a Bible is an attack on Islam.

Bit narrow don't you think?

Yes when done so publicly, and purposfully as this was done.

Note I speak nothing of the justification of the attack, only that it was an attack. I think it was stupid grandstanding to not swear on the bible, as an exchristian and atheist I would without hesitation, and I would take my oath seriously as well. There is something to be said for tradition, especially harmless ones (or does the bible burn her fingers or make her feel unclean?). An attack can be truthful, it can be justified, it can be as simple as not swearing on a bible, but it is still an attack on both Christianity and the traditions of Canada.

For me, Canada gets what it deserves, its socialist experiment has started to fail and I will laugh at them when it does in slapstick humor fashion, pat them on the figerative back when they get back on their feet, and continue to love them.

I have no idea why anyone would want anyone else to take an oath on something that doesn't mean all that much to them. It's plainly silly and hypocritical - I'm glad she was smart enough to see that, even if some of the Sun's readers aren't.

I feel the same way about the US crazy far right experiment! We'll still supply you with oil, water and all the other natural resources the rather portly US population consumes when you abandon your third world ways.

:thumbsup:

Yes I know... we poor hapless Canadians are such a joke! We appreciate all the condescension you can muster.

As highthief points out, we will still be here when the US's neocon experiment finally collapses upon itself... granted the following economic collapse will likely drag us down with it... nothing to laugh about there.

As for not swearing on the bible being an "attack"... What hyperbole. The only reason this is even being talked about is because some increasingly conservative voices in Canada have chosen to make it an issue. It would have otherwise been a non-event.

In case you missed that, the only ones doing any "grandstanding" are those who have brought this to our attention. I stand by the belief that if you are going to take an oath you should swear on something meaningful to you othewise the oath is meaningless.

Yes, its always the conservatives fault, we know that :thumbsup:

I wonder if she would be willing to say the bible is 'meaningless' and she needs something 'meaningful' to say an oath on. That would be a hoot :D

I for one appreciate Canada, it is a very beautiful country with extremely great hospitable people. It used to be we weren't that much different but things have changed, greed controls this country now.

If the new Governor General chooses not to be sworn in by the Bible, she has the right I guess. I see nothing wrong with it as long as she does the best job she was chosen to do. Her judgement comes between her and God, I was not placed on this planet to judge anyone's actions that do not harm me or my family, personally. Some of the greatest hypocrites I"ve ever seen were people who claimed to be "Christians" and could recite Bible verses while they badmouth, condemn, judge, steal, and do everything they can for the almighty dollar.

I would never take an oath on a bible. I'm not christian

A tradition like swearing on the bible was born from the assumption of religion being the ultimate meter of morality. Religion and government don't belong anywhere near each other, unless you're saying "religion doesn't belong in government."

She has the right not to swear on a bible... not everyone is christian *GASP!*

As for Canada's socialist experiment failing... how about we stop giving you all that awesome power, oil, and water... Then we'll see how long you guys can stay on your feet... Canada is prospering.

That would be within her rights under the charter. Albeit a foolish one, seeing as she is the head of state.

she might not be willing to say it, but if she's not a christian, then the bible is meaningless. well, not meaningless, but it's a book no more meaningfull than something like aseops fables. it's got some stories, morals, but that's it.

i don't believe in jesus being the messiah. to me the bible is a book. and for the most part a highly fictional book. so would you want me swearing an oath on it? it'd be the same as you swearing an oath on harry potter and the sorcerers stone or some such book.

and that would be much more of an attack on christianity than refusing to swear on the bible.

Sort of taking this thread in a new direction, although it's been touched on slightly:

Should we do away with the swearing on the Bible? Should we do away with swearing all together in courts? Should be swear on Green Eggs and Ham, as has been suggested? What do you think?

yep. we should definatly get rid of swearing on the bible. i relize it is tradition, but it is a tradition that really doesn't, or shouldn't, have a place in a secular govt.

This came up in another thread, where some asked about having to swear on the bible in a court. I checked with my friend who is a trial lawyer and he confirmed that there are many ways to swear an oath -- you can swear on a bible, you can affirm an oath, he even mentioned one case where a Chinese person requested a traditional form of swearing an oath in China, it involved live chickens... and there are more.

The point being that this sort of thing happens *all the time*. People make oaths by swearing by things that have meaning to them.

Again, the only people making a big deal about this are those on the right who wish to disparage Paul Martin's choice of GG. Remember there is an election in our very near future.

By the way, I haven't seen this story anywhere on the news. I did a Google News search and didn't find anything either. Could it be that this was on only covered in the Sun?

What if she's Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Maoist, as pointed out above very eloquently by "The Typist" Mennonite and refuses to swear on a Bible or one with the New Testament? Has she said she is atheist or are people just assuming because she refused to swear in on the Bible.

Her answer was very good, as lifted from the thread starters post = Personally, I dislike the idea of any of my leaders swearing on a Bible. It shows that they are biased to one religion and therefore there's no true seperation of church and state. It does in fact show the opposite that the state only recognizes one religion, that of the Judeo Christian Bible.

Also, to me it shows far more honesty by saying, "I don't want to swear on the Bible, because....." than having someone take the oath swearing on the Bible and it truly didn't mean anything to them, it was just show to appease people.

I don't see this as an attack on Christianity, I see it as the opposite...... I see supposed Christians condemning her and a country for following their heart and staying true to thier (the GG and the country) beliefs. Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount,

And here:

So some should worry more about the beam in their own eyes than to worry about the splinter in their brothers or sisters eye. And televangelists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and politicians and radio talking heads should take more heed of what Jesus truly said than to pass judgement on others and feel their crap don't stink cause they prophesied His word..... even though they do not know his words.

BTW why would you want to swear on something supposedly so holy to do man's work. Countries were not made by God, governments were not made by God, 99.9% of laws were not made by God nor for God...... so why would I swear to my God to do the work not for him but for something man made that should have nothing to do with God or how I believe in HIm.

Interesting how when certain words are put together, emotion can be triggered.

Spoiler: My first reaction was a curtain of rage blinding my view of the computer monitor. Such arrogance, such hipocracy. "And continue to love them..." Words like that show no love. The next emotion was embarassment, that someone could spin me like that. Finally, I regained composure and realized that the same view applies to our neighbour to the south. Their experiment is not in good shape, IMHO, and when pots and kettles start debating the colour differences in charcoal and soot, things go badly. I would lose self respect in responding to that attack on my nations values. Instead, I leave it to you, the reader who has taken the time in reading this reply, to understand that words like the ones I have quoted above can have a profound effect on the reader. Please be careful what you write.

I am of the view that a Canadian citizen should be allowed to bring any religious article they want into a ceremony to make the solemn event personally meaningful to them. I have never heard of live chickens being used in an oath, but I think that would be cool. Our First Nations people often use Sweetgrass and tobacco, and I thought that was memorable.

I am going to have to agree with others on this one. This is a non-event.

This is the only article I found on it: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092603.html
Ben I had the same reaction, I had to make sure I hit the back button before I made a snap post and got myself into trouble, then after thinking about it, I figured the person who posted that wasn't worth my time or my effort to reply.

Shit, that wasn't rideough who posted that, it was me, I'm babysitting his kids and using his computer, I must look at who I am logged in as before I post...lol.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

In Jamaica, the Governor General is a ceremonial position with absolutely no power. I assume it's the same in Canada. Technically the governor general represents the reigning monarch in England. As you may know, the reining monarch in England has little power over England itself these days, much less power over commonwealth countries like Canada and Jamaica.

A monarchy, by definition, is a country ruled by a monarch. In most countries (including England, I think) the monarch and his/her family are supposedly distinguished by God for the special purpose of ruling a country.

Since the foundations of royalty are religious, the Governor General I think has a certain obligation to follow form. Though the offense of not swearing on a bible is not as egregious as if a Bishop were to refuse such an oath, the nature of the offense is similar.

So are you suggesting that the GG can only hold the position if they are a Christian?

While the Queen of England is both the Head of State as well as the Commander in Cheif of the Military and Head of the Church of England, I do not believe it is a prerequiste that her representative be of any given religion. The GG is a purely secular position.

It should also be noted that while the position of the GG is largely symbolic the position does have some powers that under the rule of law do hold weight. However, if the GG were to exercise those powers in a way that was deemed overt (i.e. disolving Parliament before being asked to by the government) all hell would break loose and I suspect there would be a strong movement for the sessation of the position.

Ben I do have respect for you, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders as they say, but I have to also say, welcome to my world. My nations values are attacked far more frequently and harshly here weekly then you will have in a year. A president I support is compared to Hitler, and the most irrational claims are made with utmost earnestness. Now I could get angry, but what for? Some I find amusing, some disturbing, some I think need medical treatment, but none are worth getting angry over. I'm sure you can find far harsher critiques of your nations values inside your own nation. I think socialism is a stupid idea which has made Canada weaker, which is a shame, and socialism world wide itself becomes more and more fragile as the takers outnumber the producers. When I see what you guys pay for your 'free' health care, I can only laugh, but I still love you.

Canada is not socialist.

We have representation elected just like the US. I go to the voting booth (actually quite soon, if the media is correct) and send off my Member of Parliament to Ottawa.

If we are socialist, then so are you guys.

Maybe the stumbling block here is our conflicting views on socialism.

Maybe the correct term you are looking for is Liberal? Liberal is not a dirty word here in Canada, where Socialism is.

The social services we provide our population are wide spreading. Please don't infer that as socialism.

Oh, and the correct term is "Universal Health Care", which is another thing that is constantly misquoted by american media. We know that it is far from free. As a matter of fact, Health expenditures account for almost half of the provincial budgets in Canada. The other half is divided between Highways and Education. A tiny bit is left over for the other social services that the province funds. Please don't use the term "Free Healthcare" when referring to Canadian medical services and then put quotes around it like you are scoffing at our ignorances. Only the ignorant refer to it as "Free". I don't.

Don't mess with an economist...

Bingo. To sit down here and shout 'socialists!' up north as if we are any better or different asks a lot of the listener. We all know what socialism is.
The goods in Canada are not owned collectively by the citizens or by the Canadian government. The Canadian government does not control the Canadian econemy. I hope this is clear.

Canada is a parliamentary representative democracy and is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. If anything, Canada is farther from socialism than the United States in that they have a queen as head of state, where as we have a president (although the positions are not entirely different).

At the rate the US's healthcare is going we will as taxpayers and as patients be paying out far far more than those with Universal Healthcare. But you know...... some people in the US would rather be greedy and self serving and preach how "Christian" they are and how "Christian" our country needs to be, as they line their pockets with their what was it.....30 pieces of silver..... from the healthcare industry.

I'm saying that the GG, by definition of the role, should pledge allegiance to the royal monarch of England, and, for me at least, it would be hard to pledge allegiance to the Head of the Church of England without being part of that church. Moreover, I find it kind of hypocritical of someone to seek a position like GG, which embodies the strong relations between the Queen and her "subjects" in the "empire", but not want to do this one critical task, which symbolically cements the Vassal to her Queen in the manner of the Queen's choosing. It's rare these days for people to pledge allegiance to other people--it's something left over from feudal days. But for whatever reason, that's what the GG is supposed to do--it's part of tradition, I guess--a tradition that people have embraced. Without the ceremony, without adherence to tradition, the GG basically just another ambassador for the country.

Mind you, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. In my ideal world, the role of GG would be redefined in the books as being "just another ambassador."

No one seeks the role of GG. They are asked to take on the role. I don't know what oath they are actually swearing but I would be interested to see if it actually requires them to become a vassal of the Queen.

You might be interested to know that our GG, the Canadian head of state, was not born in Canada. Rather she was born in Hati.

Furthermore, the Head of the Church of England is only one of her titles. The part that actually matters to Canada is that she is our titular head of our state. I would agree with you if the GG was also head of the Anglican Church. But I am sure we already have someone who is the head of the Anglican Church of Canada...

You said Titular. Hehehehe.

Socialists are elected, communists are not.

Many/most liberals are socialists, but not all socialists are liberals.

And Ben, I scoff at how awful your health care system really is, how obnoxiously expensive, and how American liberals see it as somehow a wonderful thing.

We know potential when we see it.

Potential for a endless and inefficient money sink, a liberal nirvana if you will.

A recent worldwide study rated the health care of the "first world" countries. Ustwo, you may wish to look into the standing of the US among other nations that you deem inferior.

Ever notice it's only americans who call Canada socialist? Canadians seem to consider ourselves to be a democracy. Seems rather funny to me that they don't call themselves socialists, but I guess the definition changes when it concerns them. Seems they change a lot of definitions when it concerns them.

Scoff at our universal health care all you want it's ours, you don't have to use it, we do. Do you have any first hand experience to back up your claim that it is awful? Or are you just going by what you read?

:hmm: might as well tell you now, ustwo doesn't need first or second hand knowledge about liberal ideas/programs, he prefers to scoff at them on general principle.

I've said it before and I will say it again, yes there are things that can be fixed in the Canadian healthcare system. But in saying that, I also think that there are very few bureaucratic systems that are perfect.

I have used the system enough to know that it works when you need it.

We may pay more than is neccesary for the system but in the end, everyone is covered. You see, most here don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that everyone is cared for.

Personally I find the greed that is at the basis of the US system quite galling. Fuck the poor. If they can't afford to pay for health insurance, let them die.

The US healthcare system *is* the best in the world if you can afford it. Most can't


As the US sinks further and further into debt, we keep paying off our debt, posting surpluses and running a deficit free budget (this despite having Universal healthcare and a generous social safety net). In the end, what really galls US republicans is that year after year, our little "socialist experiment" continues to succeed.

American health care, over all, costs more per capita than our Canadian experiment.

You see, what we did was take out all of the private insurance companies. They need to make a profit, and we take all of that slack in the system and put it back into patient care.

Did you know that if the US were to get rid of private insurance, you could afford Universal Health Care tomorrow?

It takes political will to do that. "Everybody is insured. No more paperwork, no more co-pays. No more HMO's."

Instead of bottle-necking demand for health care at the insurance company, we do it at the point of referrals to a specialist and wait lists for surgeries and other medical procedures.

American (insured): Have chest pain. Go to family doctor. Present proper insurance. Get expensive test. Get referred to expensive doctor. Get expensive diagnosis. Get very expensive surgery very quickly. Laugh at other health care systems and how inefficient they are. Eventually die.

American (uninsured): Have chest pain. Save up money to go to family doctor. be informed of cost for expensive test. Walk out of doctor's office, with chest pain. Die much faster than insured person.

Canadian (universal): Have chest pain. Don't worry about a family doctor. Present yourself to emergency room, because they are open all the time. Wait in the waiting room. Have physician see you. Wait for test. Have test done. Test shows nothing wrong. Have expensive test scheduled for 6 weeks later. Get expensive test done eventually. Doctor refers you to a specialist. Make appointment for specialist for 6 weeks. Specialist books surgery for 2 weeks, comments how horrible it is that you had to wait for so long. Have surgery. Cry at how if you were a rich american, you could get the surgery done weeks ago. Eventually die.

We each choose our own path. The Canadian path just treats everyone the same, regardless of their financial status.

And there I go again, getting sucked into the traditional American trap of having EVERY FUCKING CONVERSATION ABOUT CANADA REVOLVE AROUND OUR HEALTH SYSTEM.

We were talking about Bibles and politics, but nooooooooo, we got to bring healthcare into it.

I should have known. I will try harder in the future.

Actually, Toronto is the cleanest friendliest big city I've ever been to. :)

You're Stratford Festival is one of the greatest and least expensive Summer vacations one can go on. :thumbsup:

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had some of the most beautiful, nicest, and non materialistic women I saw when I was in the Navy. :)

Finally, Vancouver is almost as clean as Toronto, and has one of the most beautiful landscapes surrounding it than any city I have ever been to. :)


OVerall, Canada is a wonderful place with truly great people, excellent cities and wonderful golf courses. :thumbsup:

That's semi true. Most uninsured do wait too long before they do anything because of cost and then when they have to do something, the cost is outrageous because what they had, had gotten worse because they didn't do anything.

But I recently went, I go every year to the ER for my Bronchitis, usually costs $500 but I do that because 97% of doctors here won't see you without insurance and the 3% who do are either just as expensive or so back logged that I wouldn't see them for 3-4 months.

Anyway, when they found the swollen lymph nodes on my chest x-rays, because a doctor cared more about me than the cost, they did everything extremely fast. From the tests to the surgery.

(Had I had insurance, I probably would not have gotten the speedy treatments I had gotten. As they would have waited for approvals and referrals and God forbid if I had gone to the wrong hospital...... so in some ways it is nicer NOT being insured. :lol: )

However, it has left me over $20,000 in debt with more bills coming in (as I have yet to recieve the surgeons bill and the bill for everything concerning the surgery.)

So no they didn't let me die, however, I will be in debt for quite sometime.... and the taxpayers and insured are the ones truly paying for mine and others like me who can't pay and make too much (if you can call $11,500, too much) to get any help.

Just trying to set the record straight. As some people here, wrongfully believe you in Canada and other Universal Healthcare countries have to wait on lists as you die, which is not true, people outside the US feel the uninsured die before they get help.... that is not true, we mortgage our futures and destroy our credit but we can get the help, depending on the medical facility. Private hospitals can require insurance only, any hospital accepting Medicare and Medicaid MUST treat anyone presenting and have a program in place to treat the poor, which is ...... government funded and they probably pay 3-4 times what the Canadian or any other Universalized healthcare country's government pays.

The GG has lots of power that she never uses, except on request of the PM or parliament.

The Queen has lots of power that she never uses, except on the request of the PM.

The Queen of Canada may be other things that the Queen of Canada. But so far as Canada is concerned, she is just our Queen.

In Canada, if you don't want to swear on a Bible, you can solumnly affirm your oath. The Canadian constitution holds multiculturalism and religious freedom up there with things like the right to vote as important to our society.

Canada is not a christian nation. Canada is a nation of many cultures, religions, and most importantly -- many freedoms.

The US government spends as large a percentage of your national GDP as the Canadian government does. Private expendatures on health care in Canada are 3 times less than the USA. Canada's GDP is less than the USA's.

In what way is Canadian health care obnoxiously expensive?

You do realize that the USA spends more dollars on health care paper work than Canada spends on health care? And not by a small margin.

Find out how much your neighbourhood hospital spends on billing paperwork.

On average, Canadian health care seems to be as efficient or more efficient as US health care, based off infant mortality, life expectancy, survival from heart attacks and cancer and stroke, etc. Last I checked, US system seems to be better for heart attacks, while Canada was better for Cancer.

But we should still burn US soldiers at the stake if they touch the Koran inappropriately, of course.

:crazy:

Same reason that PC techs when trying to service Macs used to suggest zapping the PRAM.... because that's all that they know about it and all that they can suggest.

yay for on topic posts :rolleyes:

Of course the bible shouldn't be used for swearing in if she doesn't want to use. Get over it.

Ah but there is a huge difference, Arab countries are founded on their Muslim religion. our countries (Canada and the US) were not. In fact we were given the right to worship what and how we like.

As for the inappropriate touching of the Koran (I assume you mean the shitting upon it and the reports that soldiers would flush it and such....) is just sinking to their level, while insulting and disrespecting everyone who worships that book, even the innocent.... and that is wrong.

How one can compare not swearing in on a Bible to the attrocities soldiers have committed against the Koran, I guess only makes sense to those who feel the world revolves around the US and have egos that believe the US is never wrong in anything we do.

when did we burn a soldier at the stake?

exactly.

and i think others have already appropriately responded to your post.

I have a problem with this statement. The US was founded as a Christian country, with specific statutes that prevented a state-mandated method of worship. That would be why the ten commandments were in courtrooms, "In God We Trust" is on the money, and hundreds of other examples and historical statements exist.

But what that has to do with being able to disrespect the Bible while having to honor the Koran is something only a liberal could come up with.


It might not be how I would do it, but if it was used as a method of interrogation that resulted in our gaining intel, I applaud it. A hypothetical for you: If disrespecting the Koran saved American soldiers' lives, would you support it? Or is that beyond your level of "support for the troops?"

I also shouldn't neglect to point out that some in the US want our government to fund "works of art" like "Piss Christ" and whatever it was that had elephant dung all over a painting of the Virgin Mary. Do you see anything wrong with THAT?

If you really believe the acts soldiers may have committed against the Koran are "atrocities," it is unlikely any past or present member of any military force is going to be interested in discussing much with you. I know that statement made ME lose interest in doing so.

Yes, unlike your response.

PM me and I'll explain why it's relevant.

A valid response (not that I agree with it)... BUT you should be equally prepared for the consequences of such actions. Why wouldn't muslims who believe what they do NOT be offended at these actions?

When you push the envelopes of good taste don't be surprised if people are going to be offended. If you then tread into a very hot button issue with the same bad taste, don't be surprised if they are more than offended.

And that is why there have been rulings against religion in government. We are a country that has puritanical roots and we are constantly at odds with ourselves because of such, but our government CANNOT recognize any religion as being the official religion.

And I don't believe we were founded as a "Christian" nation. Maybe the majority of the founding fathers were Christian, but that's it.

"In God we trust" goes only as far as the Cold War. We put it on our money to show those Godless Russian Commies that we were better than they because we had God on our side.

Read your history, you may find we actually had a few Jewish, agnostic and atheist forefathers signing the Dec, of Indep. and in our first Congress to ratify the Constitution. (Not saying but a hint...... if you scratch the itch you WILL find this to be true.)


Where did I say disrespecting the Bible was ok??????

I do have issues that if we call ourselves better than we cannot sink to their level. There are far more ways to get information out. And above all else we should never insult something that will bring even more hatred.

I submit by desecrating the Koran, to "teach these terrorists a lesson" in fact turns even more Muslims against us. This then becomes a state sponsored crusade against a religion.

If our government, through their agents show no respect, and in fact disrespect the Koran, what does that say about our government's feelings towards millions of people's Holiest of books?????????

Is it no wonder we are hated with such passion?

I do not think the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) which is where the government money comes from, should finance these. However, I believe that when you file you need not detail the work, just be able to prove that there is art, therefore there is no discrimination.

And there is a huge difference between your examples and that of the military desecrating something very holy to others.

One is "art" sponsored only as a financial grant, where government does not have any say and has to maintain a neutrality, because of freedom of expression.

The other is the voice and agents of our government showing they have no respect for others religion. That our government not only endorses these actions but encourages them


Sorry, I am former Navy..... and I am great friends with many other military present and former and most believe we have crossed over a line of good taste, decency and that those soldiers and their superiors are as bad as, if not worse than the terrorists, because of actions such as these.

Again, there are far better ways to gather information than to sink to their level.

Obviously it didn't make you lose interest because you commented.

I have the right to speak out and to believe that shitting on someone's Holy Book is an attrocity and that since the soldiers have not been reprimanded our government must endorse these actions. That infuriates me, because I have nothing against Muslims nor the Koran and those attrocities do not speak for me.

Again, there are far better ways to get intelligence than to disrespect the innocent. All we are doing by allowing these attrocities is showing those Muslims that may have respected us and felt the terrorists were wrong, is to show them that the terrorists may in fact be right.

Put yourself in a neutral Muslim's shoes in Saudi, or Iran or Syria and you hear of thses attrocities committed against your Holy Book..... would that not infuriate you to the point where you may take arms against those who did this action?

That maybe hard for you to do with true neutrality..... think of it this way..... Syria captures a platoon of our men and reports come from the POW camp that these men are forced to have homosexual sex, have pictures of them being tortured, and that the Syrian army in these POW camps have shit, pissed, burned and desecrated the Bible in every way possible? And their sole excuse is that they do this to get information on our troop movements and it is not how they truly feel about the Bible.

Would that not inspire you to take up arms or to support the military more?

That is what we are doing to these people. Exact same thing. These terrorists have so much hate in them, that our "show" against the Koran, probably doesn't faze them so in the end it's not even a good interrogation tool, but more just a show of our government's disrespect for the innocent.

well, if you respond to somethingi post, i feel it's appropriate to respond back. and you still haven't answered, when has one of our soldiers been burned at the stake for desicrating the koran? or were you just trying to throw out a strawman?

When I go to Canada, which is at least once a year, I see the same stores, same clothes, same cars, and mostly same sports. The only things which I can say are different are much higher gas prices and your health care system. Outside of a little french here and there and the metric system for highways I wouldn't know I left the US. So that leaves us talking about your health care and higher gas prices :thumbsup:

Brothers in arms. Amen. (Go Leafs! d'oh!).

By the way, I've noticed the same about the US. Very similar in most aspects to our culture. Do you realize how Canadian you guys really are?

That was uncalled for eh!

:icare:

Except our speed limits are WAY higher over here.

And boy, do American's speed!

I was going 65 -- 10 over the limit -- on an American highway, and I swear most of the Americans where going almost 100!

Why bother having highways with a 55 limit if everyone is going to drive 100 anyhow?

because if the limit were 100 everyone would go 150

It's the Queen's rules. If the Queen want's a representative to swear on the Bible then they should have to do that to get the job. If you don't want to then don't accept the job.

I'm not religious in any way, but the Queen should have stepped forward and put a stop to this. This is the Gov General, not a manager at Dairy Queen! There is only one Gov, General and normal hiring laws shouldn't apply to it.

Show me the law that says the Govenor General MUST swear an oath on a Bible. You show me that and I will agree with you.

Seriously, this is a non-issue. The important part is that the GG swears an oath of office. The artifact upon which she makes this oath is besides the point.

Why do you believe the Queen wants the prospective GG to swear on a Bible?

Why do you think the Queen should have stepped forward? Isn't that up to the Queen, at the very least?