Hassan Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrockthefirst Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 10, 2009 Share 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!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted June 11, 2009 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Therese Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I don't have problem with the monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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