TotusTuusMaria Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1886732' date='Jun 8 2009, 08:56 PM']I'm all in favour of scrapping the monarchy, by the way. I think it's a useless part of our society that's only there for nostalgia's sake. EDIT: I mean the Canadian monarchy. I'm saying nothing about monarchies in any other country.[/quote] Like Queen Icey-Ice-Landy, TTM, and Princess Gianna? Edited June 9, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria
TotusTuusMaria Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) i voted undecided I think I probably would have been a royalist. Edited June 9, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria
Nihil Obstat Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1887336' date='Jun 9 2009, 05:30 PM']Like Queen Icey-Ice-Landy, TTM, and Princess Gianna? [/quote] Precisely. Also the High Lord Sovereign Duke Joseph of the West, Marshal of the Western Assembly.
Resurrexi Posted June 10, 2009 Author Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='picchick' post='1887156' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:42 PM']Um...it was more than that, as many have posted already here. Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history. [/quote] I don't think that freedom of speech should exist, but you're right that I should probably take a closer look at the history behind the American Revolution. Edited June 10, 2009 by Resurrexi
KnightofChrist Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1887469' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:14 PM']I don't think that freedom of speech should exist, but you're right that I should probably take a closer look at the history behind the American Revolution. [/quote] If the freedom of speech is the right to speak truth, it does exist I believe. If the freedom of speech is the 'right' to speak lies and errors it does not exist.
Resurrexi Posted June 10, 2009 Author Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887501' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:09 PM']If the freedom of speech is the right to speak truth, it does exist I believe. If the freedom of speech is the 'right' to speak lies and errors it does not exist.[/quote]
Hassan Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887501' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:09 PM']If the freedom of speech is the right to speak truth, it does exist I believe. If the freedom of speech is the 'right' to speak lies and errors it does not exist.[/quote] And who decides what constitutes "lies" and "errors"? By the standards of modern biology, anthropology, and history the Bible is quite full of errors. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want the Bible banned.
KnightofChrist Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1887515' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:25 PM']And who decides what constitutes "lies" and "errors"? By the standards of modern biology, anthropology, and history the Bible is quite full of errors. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want the Bible banned.[/quote] The Holy Catholic Church would. And no the bible is not full of errors, that is a lie.
Hassan Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887518' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:30 PM']The Holy Catholic Church would.[/quote] Do you have any objective, rational basis for that judgement that the non Catholic portion of the human population, a large majority of that population btw, could accept? [quote]And no the bible is not full of errors, that is a lie.[/quote] I didn't say it was. I said by the standards of various modern fields of knowledge it contained quite a few errors. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it is correct. Unless you can find a anthropologist who believes that the human population began with s single pair of humans. For example.
KnightofChrist Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Yes, but I don't have time to waste with you tonight Mr. Hassan. The Bible is without error. But thanks for taking us off topic. Edited June 10, 2009 by KnightofChrist
Hassan Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887530' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:43 PM']Yes, but I don't have time to waste with you tonight Mr. Hassan. The Bible is without error. But thanks for taking us off topic.[/quote] I didn't know that asking a basic question regarding a claim you made was taking a thread off topic.
Lounge Daddy Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1885384' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:54 AM']Wouldn't we be more like Canada? Ewwwww..... [/quote] Haha, that's the first thing that popped into my mind. Bleh!
Lounge Daddy Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Socrates' post='1887295' date='Jun 9 2009, 05:11 PM']Don't tread on me! (I think we should all also note our own government now violates more rights than King George's did back in the day. Secession I say!)[/quote] Absolutely 100% in agreement.
Lounge Daddy Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='picchick' post='1887156' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:42 PM']Um...it was more than that, as many have posted already here. Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history. [/quote] Yes! It was tyranny. And the more the colonists communicated with the King to point out the wrongs, the more the King decided to "make an example" out of the colonies. After all, he didn't want the other areas of the British Empire to start thinking they could as for better treatment from the crown. Edited June 10, 2009 by Lounge Daddy
tinytherese Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1887515' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:25 PM']And who decides what constitutes "lies" and "errors"? By the standards of modern biology, anthropology, and history the Bible is quite full of errors. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want the Bible banned.[/quote] That's another debate phorum topic entirely. No hijacking please.
picchick Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1887469' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:14 PM']I don't think that freedom of speech should exist, but you're right that I should probably take a closer look at the history behind the American Revolution. [/quote] I think it should. The people of the colonies were not able to say anything wrong about the king or their way of doing things. If they did it was considered tyranny. Furthermore, without freedom of speech, the truth has a chance of NOT coming out. Just think of the state of the nation now. Think of all the lies and attack against Catholicism today. Do you think that if we did not have freedom of speech that we would be able to defend? And Knight of Christ, freedom of speech from Catholic point of view and even Christian is to speak truth, and to guard our words as if we were speaking with Jesus next to us. Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean that we can say whatever we want. It means we are free to say what we have to say, from our opinions, judgements, and teachings. At least this is what I remember from religion. (I am agreeing with you) Without freedom of speech, Rex, I don't think that this forum would exist so that you can say what you want to say. Also, this goes beyond what I said. You did not address what the other poster said about freedom of relgion (this goes for Niccolò as well) Would we be able to practice our faith in they way we do today? I would say not. America was founded on CHRISTIAN principles, not Catholic. Catholics in England at the time were being persecuted. Sure things could have changed from then to now but still. We now have this freedom in place and we are able to go to Church without hiding that fact. I must say, I am really enjoying this topic. Good job for starting it Rex! Edited June 10, 2009 by picchick
kenrockthefirst Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Again, I'm not clear about what rights were being taken away or infringed. The Crown and Parliament maintained the Colonies for the benefit of a) Britain and b) the colonists. Britain had gone through a world war with France for hegemony in, among other places, North America, which left Britain bankrupt. Was it unreasonable for Britain to require that the colonists pony up for the maintenance of an armed force that was there, in part, for the protection of the colonists? To be clear, the tax rate involved was some tiny percentage of what we pay today. Was it about "representation?" How well are we represented by a Congress of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators for a nation of 300 million? BTW, Romans 13, anyone?
jeffpugh Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1885550' date='Jun 7 2009, 12:00 PM']Oh you silly Canada bashers. [/quote] Yeah, player-hating much... [quote name='princessgianna' post='1885645' date='Jun 7 2009, 05:20 PM']Catholics were not allowed to practice the Faith originally. Granted there was not a lot of Catholic Resistance (excepting Charles Carroll of course). Area of Maryland (should be pronounced Mary land) was the only colony that "allowed" Catholicism. Carroll with Benjamin Franklin (he was a joke imho) went to try get Canadian forces to help but the smart Catholci Canadians knew how much Catholics were bashed and refused to help. There you go a history lesson! Yes? Silly [i]silly[/i] people indeed! [/quote] Glad you're on our side [quote name='Didacus' post='1886334' date='Jun 8 2009, 11:22 AM']Canada gained their independance by asking for it. (Sure, we kept the queen and all, but even that is on the way out soon) Just a little papist commentary there. Back to you Bob.[/quote] What do you think of the English Monarchy as a Frenchman? Indeed, I think it's interesting that your people knew of a monarchy, but over in France, they abandoned the concept for the same thing Americans did... Ironic that one abandonment of the monarchy was colonial, one was in its own motherland. [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1886732' date='Jun 8 2009, 08:56 PM']I'm all in favour of scrapping the monarchy, by the way. I think it's a useless part of our society that's only there for nostalgia's sake. EDIT: I mean the Canadian monarchy. I'm saying nothing about monarchies in any other country.[/quote] Lawl. Nostalgia is right. But I like Her Majesty being on the money! And being mentioned in the passports... [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1887337' date='Jun 9 2009, 06:31 PM']i voted undecided I think I probably would have been a royalist.[/quote] I think the term is "Loyalist" [quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1887779' date='Jun 10 2009, 01:36 PM']Again, I'm not clear about what rights were being taken away or infringed. The Crown and Parliament maintained the Colonies for the benefit of a) Britain and b) the colonists. Britain had gone through a world war with France for hegemony in, among other places, North America, which left Britain bankrupt. Was it unreasonable for Britain to require that the colonists pony up for the maintenance of an armed force that was there, in part, for the protection of the colonists? To be clear, the tax rate involved was some tiny percentage of what we pay today. Was it about "representation?" How well are we represented by a Congress of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators for a nation of 300 million? BTW, Romans 13, anyone?[/quote] Interesting thought. I sorta thought about that scripture quote too... Okay, my thoughts as a commonwealth-er. I'm not sure that the revolution was that well-founded cause there wasn't a reasonable hope for winning. Britain had a good defense in the colony, and I think we in Upper and Lower Canada put up with taxes as well, and we're our own nation now! Confederation wasn't really bloody for us... we had to wait it out, sure, but we're not stunted in our growth or anything. To be fair, we have a smaller population 'cause we have a whole lot of cold up here... and a lot of rock (Canadian Shield)... That's neither here nor there though.
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887518' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:30 PM']The Holy Catholic Church would. And no the bible is not full of errors, that is a lie.[/quote] Hence why I remain a papist at heart!
jeffpugh Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Didacus' post='1887856' date='Jun 10 2009, 03:45 PM']Hence why I remain a papist at heart! [/quote] I hope you're working on a response for me
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now