"Our ties to monarchy are bigger than the royals"

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/ties+monarchy+bigger+than+royals/2152389/story.html#

"Poll finds Canada disenchanted with royals: report"

"The CBC reported that the poll conducted by the Navigator polling firm found some 80 percent of Canadians believe that the monarchy is out of step with the times, although they feel that the royal family has had an important place in their nation's history.

More than 60 percent of respondents feel as well that Canada's constitutional monarchy is outdated, the CBC reported."

Let me put it bluntly. If this poll is correct, and sixty percent of Canadians feel the Monarchy is outdated, and if, to further the assumption, that at any time in my lifetime Canada decides to remove the Monarchy from our system, you can expect to see me on the first flight out of Canada. I would not wish to live anywhere near at all such a despicable country as it would be.

Canada as it is is sick morally, culturally, and in many other ways, and to force me to renounce Her Majesty, the Queen, would be the final straw which I could not, and would not, accept.

First they remove our British Citizenship so I cannot easily serve Her Majesty in any of her realms but this one, they ditch years of history, of tested and true methods, of a strong moral code, of a justice system that was the best in the world, and then remove the Monarchy from Canadian life, it would truly be one of the lowest, most despised nations on earth, and even my love for it's history could not overcome the sense of revulsion I have at merely considering the possibility that Canada would do something as horrible as this.

I do not apologise for my sentiments, and I honestly view anyone who seriously proposes anything of this sort as an 'improvement' as a raving lunatic. I am aghast that anyone calling themselves a patriotic Canadian could even let a thought of this sort go in one ear, much less declare they believe it desirable, good, or in any other way something Canadians should choose.

For All We Have and Are

For all we have and are,
For all our children's fate,
Stand up and meet the war.
The Hun is at the gate!
Our world has passed away
In wantonness o'erthrown.
There is nothing left to-day
But steel and fire and stone.

Though all we knew depart,
The old commandments stand:
"In courage keep your heart,
In strength lift up your hand."

Once more we hear the word
That sickened earth of old:
"No law except the sword
Unsheathed and uncontrolled,"
Once more it knits mankind,
Once more the nations go
To meet and break and bind
A crazed and driven foe.

Comfort, content, delight --
The ages' slow-bought gain --
They shrivelled in a night,
Only ourselves remain
To face the naked days
In silent fortitude,
Through perils and dismays
Renewd and re-renewed.

Though all we made depart,
The old commandments stand:
"In patience keep your heart,
In strength lift up your hand."

No easy hopes or lies
Shall bring us to our goal,
But iron sacrifice
Of body, will, and soul.
There is but one task for all --
For each one life to give.
Who stands if freedom fall?
Who dies if England live?

--Rudyard Kipling, For All We Have and Are.

Where has our sense of duty gone?

Most Canadians oppose military role in Afghanistan

The results of these polls, if taken seriously, are quite distressing; since when has soldiers deployed to foreign fields, soldiers of free countries, supporting their own citizens freedom while at the same time spreading the same freedom, been a bad thing?
Perhaps our soldiers are getting tired, but this is not their fault, they have exerted tremendous energy doing their jobs and they cannot be blamed for the neglect they had received in the decades before this mission.
But even that is not a reason we should oppose them being present in Afghanistan, merely a reason we need to support them better and give them some more rest.

The saying 'No man is an island' could easily be applicable to almost any state on this globe, we a duty to our citizens and to our allies. The freedoms we enjoy in Canada, the same ones I might mention we are giving up so easily, did not just miraculously appear out of nowhere. It took the blood, sweat, and lives of many Britons and Canadians to achieve, and this we should not forget so quickly.
If these heroes offer to die for our sake, for the sake of our children and our children's children, should we refuse them that? Should we spare any effort to give them the best equipment and training so they can perhaps, even as they offer their lives as a sacrifice, live to see another sunrise and cherish what is undoubtedly something much more meaningful than it was before?

Happy Dominion (er, Canada) Day!

Well Happy Canada Day all!

142 years of being a Dominion, what does it mean? In effect it is really much longer, our institutions can trace their roots even back to the Magna Carta.
We may not like to think about our ties to the home country but we have much more in common than the Queen. Our freedom, laws and sense of fair play are all as a result of them passing their values on to us.

We should be grateful that they did not abandon us and finished their duty by not releasing us into the wild world prematurely and that they encouraged and supported us through our early years until we could walk on our own.

So while we celebrate Canada being its own, lets not forget those who helped shape us!

A Plea for Personal Responsibility

Today I became aware of an attempt by the Government of Ontario to extend the role of the schools so parents can "minimize" the effect of children on their own lives and, though they do not say it, extend governmental influence even farther into our upcoming generations.

Since when has the government become more capable of handling children than parents? If we are not sure the government is not qualified moreso than the regular every day parent, are we sure that we citizens have adequate mental capacity to choose their own life partners, opposed to the government? What about picking a career, should the government take over responsibility for that? We might as well allow them to tell us what education we should acquire, and maybe what kind of car to drive or where to invest our money. Oh, seems that the last two already done..
What about what what kind of toothpaste to use, or what colour of socks to wear?

At what point will people realize that there is a certain thing called personal responsibility where a person is, well, responsible for his own actions? I do think that it is not entirely right to blame the government, we, as a society have lost this sense of right and wrong and why we must be personally responsible, but the government has not helped the end to be sure.
Instead, they encourage people to do what "is right in their own eyes" under the guise of "freedom of choice", as any farsighted person could prophecy, people then take the Government on their word and act according to their whims, in short, irresponsible. The Bureaucrats then view the model which they are responsible for creating and come to the conclusion that the rest of society is just as irresponsible and must have help from the government to merely survive!

If the government will not call people to a higher level of morality and personal responsibility, as they should, then the Church must do it, as they should regardless of what the state does.
While people do not like having 'religious people' meddling in their 'private lives', this does not mean that the Church may rashly 'let them go to hell'. It must continue to call people to be responsible citizens and humans, it is our primary responsibility.
In regards to the State's role in all of this, it is one thing to force people to accept and indoctrinate children with unproven theories, it is entirely another issue for them to exercise their right to govern by demanding a high level of excellence instead of rewarding the opposite.

If people would be taught to exercise their wisely and with much thought, our country, and the world, would be in a much less sorry state of affairs.

On Christianity & Democracy

I recently came across a post on another website that quoted the indomitable Mrs Thatcher in reference to Christianity and politics, and I quite enjoyed it. I thought I might post the link here.

On Christianity & Democracy

Religous Beliefs and the State

There is a current line of reasoning that is quite popular which demands total separation of the church and the state. To be frank, regardless of the character of society, this makes a mockery of the principle of freedom of thought and speech especially when this same principle is used to force upon the populace people with thoughts and actions much more harmful to our civilization than religion could be.
In the past it certainly can be said that certain nations have been influenced harmfully by overpowering religious beliefs, religions who have taken possession of a nation and used it for harm.
But when we are honest with ourselves, could that really happen today? In such a free society as we have, if enough of the population felt that certain religious beliefs were domineering our nation to the detriment of our it, at the next election we would merely not elect the party that was giving them such influence! That is how it has been run for quite some time and should remain that way, certain minority groups should stop foisting their opinions on the majority who likely do not care either way.
It is one thing to have your personal beliefs, to campaign for them and to voice them; it is an entirely different matter to foist those opinions on other people, forcing other people to forgo their beliefs when their beliefs are not harming society or other people.

This of course, brings up the question of who gets to judge what does and what does not harm other people and society. Our precedent of course has been the Judeo-Christian God Whose laws and principles governed our nation, - and our mother nation- for hundreds of years, and Whose laws are fair, just and which have proven to work very well if adhered to.
Under them our societies grew and prospered, the work ethic that they instilled gave us an edge over other societies which were less hard working. Our countries flourished and grew.

In contrast, let us briefly look at two examples of creeds and systems of belief who both wish to supplant, or have already supplanted, the Judeo-Christian value system.

Islam:
Islam has grown quite large to be sure but Islam has also been the proponents of some very violent aggression, in the Middle East back in the early Middle Ages when they advanced in many directions annihilating their foes before them quite cruelly and taking the Holy Lands (Prompting the Crusades which were really a reaction to Muslim aggression.)
In general the average Muslim person in an strict Islamic country is poor; Islam does not encourage industrious people, leaving their countries economically and technologically behind. To be sure, the oil in some of the countries changed this, but that is more because of fortuitous circumstances than any effort or design of the people, but even in these countries it leaves the average citizen poor. This is illustrated well by our experience in Afghanistan.

Atheism:
There has not been many states built on fundamentally Atheist principles, but the one predominant nation that experimented with it serves to illustrate the point well enough. Revolutionary France.
While the monarchy of France did, in a way, bring it upon itself, the ghastly results cannot be frittered away as mere reaction, the blame falls squarely with the revolutionaries for their overreaction to the situation.
It was a gruesome period in French - and world - history because of the tenets of their new State, with no higher being to be accountable to. Because of this it quickly degenerated into a bloodbath, people being executed at every turn, honest and upright society disappearing under the onslaught of humanist oppression. It was clearly not a success, unlike the American Revolutionary War which just decades before had been built upon entirely different premises. The Judeo-Christian God was still Supreme and not neglected in the minds of the Founding Fathers, the rights they fought for were a result of their beliefs that they and their people were beings created in the image of God and deserved certain rights under British law, not because they 'felt' that they wanted these rights or that they deserved them.

This same principle, of campaigning for the personal rights of individual people because of their preciousness in the eyes of God is the predominate reason that many of the great people of the past stood up for what they saw as God given rights, risking ridicule and giving up a comfortable and easy life. The greatest causes were won by those with that in mind, not by those who believed we are merely a product of chance (as an atheist must believe when we strip everything down to the bone) and as a result worth nothing.


In conclusion, I really cannot agree that, when compared, these two systems can even come close to being as fair and as proven historically as the Jude0-Christian system. Even if in the Judeo-Christian system there is less personal liberties, compared to the secular, everyone-has-a-right-to-do-what-they-want, is this not the right thing? People can do what they want as long as it does not harm others, the government should not be telling people how to protect themselves (In all circumstances.) But even with that said, people in this era do not realize how much their actions do hurt other people even when they think it does not. Merely intoning that 'This won't hurt anyone" does not mean it will not affect anybody. This is for the government to judge, and as the Judeo-Christian standards have proven through history to be the best system in this manner, I am a firm advocate of society using it as a standard.

Two methods, do they conflict?

A good friend of mine and myself were recently conversing whether or not God even wants us to try and effect our nations from the top down (Getting into the Government and reforming it from there) or if the Lord calls us to change our nations primarily from the bottom up instead, (Changing people's personal lives which then will change the dynamics of the governments they elect.)

There is a flaw in this sort of thinking, I believe, in that the question is asked in a way that would induce an answer of either one or the other. I believe strongly that both are vital and operate better in tandem than they would alone.

Of course, changing people's lives one by one is imperative in the long run, for if society totally decays there is little hope.
At the same time we still have a few institutions and privileges that are remaining from before and if we lose them entirely it will take much more effort to reinstate than it would to fight a rearguard action until the effects of the people approach takes effect.
I am confident that there is enough people left in our countries that would stand up and say something, in effect taking the people approach, if there was a politician - or a group of politicians - that they could rally behind, ones that would not back down in face of political correct attacks or weak arguments; politicians whose main goal is not power, that they will be free to consistently stand on unpopular opinions simply because those opinions are morally correct, even to the point of risking not being re-elected, much like Wilberforce and his band of parliamentarians known for their Christianity and morals. Politicians who are brutally honest with themselves, not swaying with public opinion, and fair in all their dealings, even if it is not recognized at the time. Politicians who would be dependent on nothing but God, so that pressure could not be exerted financially, mentally or morally to cause them to buckle.

I do not see how this could not take place within one of the current parties unless they would prove hostile to it, which I could not think possible in every case. Freedom of thought and action is still a tenet of our society (At least, they say it is) though I do admit people need to remember that individual party members are indeed human beings and some people definitely need to begin to look at politicians as individuals again instead of as a member of this or that party.

Coupled with the strong Christian movement to persuade individual people on the human level, and with a firm dependence on God, I believe this is the best chance we have remaining to us, not counting Christ's miraculous return of course.
There is enough Christians that if motivated could handle all these plus work on the mission field and everywhere else. God calls us all to different things, all in accordance with His plan, so if we obey His call, who can limit the possibilities?

We cannot play the ostrich and bury our head in the sand to the state of our society, and I believe some of us are meant to get involved in reforming our society from the top down; but just as the Reformation of old touched both the high kings and the low common man, remember, God is no respecter of persons, we must also take that approach if we are to see our society brought back to the way it should be.

My Faith and my country, were do they meet?

As suggested by the title of this blog, there is two very large priorities in my life, the first and largest is obviously God.
As a follower of Christ, as I like to put it, I am called to put Him first beyond everything else, and with nothing else being close to it in second.

But the second priority is very much my nation, and this I am struggling with; seeing as God must have priority in my life, how should this affect my views on my country? I am a person that takes a lot of pride in what Canada has done, in the past at least I find little but bad decision making on the part of our politicians between the end of the Korean war and now, besides our current involvement in Afghanistan and a few other odds and ends.
I especially am proud of the British Commonwealth's part in the greater scheme of history, its ancient institutions that bind us together and make those of us who belong to it some of the most privileged people on the earth, whether we recognize it or not.

We have tried and true systems that have resisted atheist revolutions and anarchist plots, we have stood face to face with cruel and wicked empires that mean to enslave the free world and never buckled, destroying our foes every time in the end.
The slave trade was destroyed as morally wrong by our ships even though the trade going out of business would hurt our economy (contrast that to attitudes today).
Our nations have been the birthplaces of many scientists who, because of their firm believe in a God of order, braved the world to discover just how He had ordered it.
Missionaries who, encouraged by the masses at home, went far and wide, spreading the Gospel into darkest Africa, even into China, persisting against decadent rulers and hideous practices.

Of course this is not solely the property of Britain and her daughters, but because of the principle practiced and protected by the Royal Navy giving freedom of the seas, we certainly played a role in the spread of the Gospel. In a sense it was similar to the Greek language or the Roman roads, but in contrast to both the Greeks and the Romans, our governments and the majority of our populace not only did not actively hate the Gospel of Christ, it supported its furtherance.

Maybe I should say that I am proud of our history up to a certain point, and I certainly am, but how does that effect my view on my country today? Canada, and the Commonwealth, is no longer what it once was, we have let ourselves slip from the high ideals we once held, and in that sense I am quite disgusted and disheartened at my country.
But can I, or should I, give up on it? I feel that the answer is no; even if it is irreversible someone must be willing to throw themselves in the fray for a last desperate attempt, there is too much at stake, honour, duty and definitely not least of all, the salvation of my countrymen.

Maybe it is my youthful zeal and maybe it will dim over time, I pray to God that it will not and that I will find people willing to go down fighting for our values and morals, for our countr[ies] and indeed for our civilization.

We cannot continue gliding along on the waning momentum accrued from our successes in the past, we need a revival of a sense of right and wrong, and we need people to find the true God; neither the extremes of many god's, gods in everything, the 'god' of materialism many people worship nowadays and especially not the god some people claim to follow, which leads to total confusion on the part of other people who see this other god as my God even though by definition they are vastly different.

To close, my struggle comes in trying to find where the line falls in the midst of the verses of one of my favourite hymns:

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,

Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;

The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,

That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;

The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,

The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,

Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;

We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;

Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;

And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,

And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.