Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1887795' date='Jun 10 2009, 01:04 PM'][snip] 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. [snip][/quote] As a frenchman, it is a reminder that our motherland lost a war against the brits and sold us as payment to protect the 'mother land'. It reminds us that our 'mother land' offered to us no real support, gave us away and left us to their ennemie's will. There's a bit of bitterness there you might say. Also, it is a reminder that we remain on conquered ground to this day. The above is the main principal sentiment of the Quebec Seperatist. I genuinely believe that if Canada rids itself of the English Monarchy alltogether, it would bring a huge blow to the seperatist movement (perhaps lethal in the long run) since the bitter sentiment of defeat that perseveres to this day may be brougt to a 'non-issue' by de-facto, and hence the main fuel of the movement will run out. Unfortunately, Quebec has lost so much of its heritage that most seperatists have forgotten even what they once where fighting for and now simply fight to seperate for "seperation's sake". BTW, I am not a seperatist; once was, but am not anymore. As I matured, I came to realize the ideals that made Quebec what it was were no longer existant and thus the Quebec I knew and loved had already died (in most part). Instead of the seperatist then, I now hold on to those values I had loved that was once in Quebec - the Catholic values. I've come to accept that nationality, although important, is no so important as the Catholic identity, and this gives me great solace. Hey, you asked... does that awnser your question? I think I'll go back to the 'Aurore' thread now...
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1887795' date='Jun 10 2009, 01:04 PM'][snip] 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.[/quote] You tell it like it is SMM! Not many of us up here, 'cause not many of us a hard-nosed enough to stand up to the elements the way we do!
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Socrates' post='1887295' date='Jun 9 2009, 04:11 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] [quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1887779' date='Jun 10 2009, 12:36 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] LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!!!
Lounge Daddy Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='picchick' post='1887770' date='Jun 10 2009, 01:25 PM']I think it should. ...[/quote] Yes, I think the freedom of speech should exist also. That's right up there with not having to practice only a State Religion.
Lounge Daddy Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Didacus' post='1887876' date='Jun 10 2009, 04:04 PM']LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!!! [/quote] Well... I have to point out that the Founding Fathers despised democracy. So they would, and did, disagree. And I do too.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1888177' date='Jun 10 2009, 10:13 PM']Well... I have to point out that the Founding Fathers despised democracy. So they would, and did, disagree. And I do too.[/quote] Most people in this day and age, when they say democracy, mean what America has right now. Just sayin'.
KnightofChrist Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1888205' date='Jun 11 2009, 12:21 AM']Most people in this day and age, when they say democracy, mean what America has right now. Just sayin'. [/quote] But what America has 'right now' is democracy, not a Federal Republic.
Maximilianus Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 What America has right now is a gaggle of loons...no disrespect to loons.
Lounge Daddy Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1888270' date='Jun 11 2009, 01:16 AM']But what America has 'right now' is democracy, not a Federal Republic.[/quote] Which is a form of mob rule, tyranny of the majority, and is in fact socialism. Which is why liberty-minded thinkers from Plato all the way to our Founding Fathers despised democracy. Ben Franklin stated after the signing that they set up "a Republic if you can keep it." I would say we were able to keep it until about 1900. Edited June 11, 2009 by Lounge Daddy
kenrockthefirst Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 The American Revolution was based from a political philosophical perspective on the Lockean notion that the only legitimate form of government is one based on the consent of the governed. This, I believe, is a recipe for anarchy. From a Catholic perspective, isn't it accurate to say that the only legitimate political authority is that derived from God? If so, then the the colonists didn't have a leg to stand on in terms of whether the American Revolution was justified, IMHO.
Lounge Daddy Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1888445' date='Jun 11 2009, 11:10 AM']... This, I believe, is a recipe for anarchy. ...[/quote] Exactly true.
Socrates Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1888445' date='Jun 11 2009, 11:10 AM']The American Revolution was based from a political philosophical perspective on the Lockean notion that the only legitimate form of government is one based on the consent of the governed. This, I believe, is a recipe for anarchy. From a Catholic perspective, isn't it accurate to say that the only legitimate political authority is that derived from God? If so, then the the colonists didn't have a leg to stand on in terms of whether the American Revolution was justified, IMHO.[/quote] John Adams and John Hancock: We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775] John Adams: “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” • “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” –John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence " Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.] “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [Patrick Henry, May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses] John Jay: “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Thomas Jefferson: God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.] Most of the American Founding Fathers acknowledged God as the source of man's rights, and contented that religion and morality are necessary for the maintenance of a free republic. (And their words have indeed proven prophetic.) Most of our current problems with godless liberalism, socialism, etc. are also found in the UK, Canada, and Australia, and often to a greater degree than in the USA, so it's silly to blame these problems on the American founding and War for Independence. Edited June 11, 2009 by Socrates
pat22 Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 I don't remember the chatechism saying anything about action against the state in the self defence section. but as far as being a citizen of England went at the time the king was not doing anything wrong, you must remember that at this time the laws of modern america were virtually unheard of. the big gov could do whatever it wanted. but catechism or not they had a legitement arguement against Britian as a host of colonies.
jeffpugh Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 [quote name='Didacus' post='1887867' date='Jun 10 2009, 04:00 PM']As a frenchman, it is a reminder that our motherland lost a war against the brits and sold us as payment to protect the 'mother land'. It reminds us that our 'mother land' offered to us no real support, gave us away and left us to their ennemie's will. There's a bit of bitterness there you might say. Also, it is a reminder that we remain on conquered ground to this day. The above is the main principal sentiment of the Quebec Seperatist. I genuinely believe that if Canada rids itself of the English Monarchy alltogether, it would bring a huge blow to the seperatist movement (perhaps lethal in the long run) since the bitter sentiment of defeat that perseveres to this day may be brougt to a 'non-issue' by de-facto, and hence the main fuel of the movement will run out. Unfortunately, Quebec has lost so much of its heritage that most seperatists have forgotten even what they once where fighting for and now simply fight to seperate for "seperation's sake". BTW, I am not a seperatist; once was, but am not anymore. As I matured, I came to realize the ideals that made Quebec what it was were no longer existant and thus the Quebec I knew and loved had already died (in most part). Instead of the seperatist then, I now hold on to those values I had loved that was once in Quebec - the Catholic values. I've come to accept that nationality, although important, is no so important as the Catholic identity, and this gives me great solace. Hey, you asked... does that awnser your question? I think I'll go back to the 'Aurore' thread now... [/quote] Great post. "The separatists have forgotten what they are separating for" is something I've found out too. I've been to Quebec, and I've heard stories of the faith being abandoned, and I hear of their cries for preserving what is French while they let their populations shrink because they don't care what the church says about relationships and having kids, etc. [quote name='Didacus' post='1887873' date='Jun 10 2009, 04:03 PM']You tell it like it is SMM! Not many of us up here, 'cause not many of us a hard-nosed enough to stand up to the elements the way we do![/quote] Exactly! /tangent.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) It seems to me that the French in general, in France and in Quebec, have left behind their Catholic roots, and are far worse off for it. Quebec in general just doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, who's going to pay their bills if they seperate? Edited June 14, 2009 by Nihil Obstat
MichaelF Posted June 15, 2009 Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) The Colonial decision-makers (only about 1/3rd of the population was pro-Revolutionary) were simply (initially) insisting on being granted the "Rights of Englishmen". IOW, to be treated like the folks back home in Britain. Had George III been given accurate info by His Government (it's though he was given a false impression of what the Colonials were saying about him), and given the Colonies a few seats in Parliament (or a Parliament of their own), we'd all be singing "God Save The Queen" at the start of every Saturday Cricket match. It was only after George personally denounced the Colonials and brought in the Hessians (not Mercenaries, as they were troops from his feudal estates in Germany/HRE) that the bridges were burnt and it became a war against King George. Edited June 15, 2009 by MichaelF
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2009 Posted June 15, 2009 Canadians rarely, if ever, sing God Save the Queen anymore. Just sayin'.
Resurrexi Posted June 15, 2009 Author Posted June 15, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1891016' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:42 PM']Canadians rarely, if ever, sing God Save the Queen anymore. Just sayin'. [/quote]
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2009 Posted June 15, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891043' date='Jun 14 2009, 10:56 PM'][/quote] At least I never have.
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