On John Moore's Supremely poorly researched Column + His Reply
Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM
To: nationalpost, jmoore@newstalk1010.astral.com
Dear Ed & Mr Moore
Re:The supreme citizen NatPost July13/10
We all are subject to the slight refinements added to authoritative thought by our teacher's teacher's teacher.
We often believe what we learned from someone described as an authority on a subject and sometimes take every one of their words as truth - particularly in our youth.
I assume Mr Moore is a regular, young-person's opinion contributor and that his work is no longer fact-checked - as such, and allowing for no one's mind to have perfect recall I submit that:
1) The preamble to our 1982 BNA/Constitution Act rightly includes God as the head of the "chain of command" of Canadian Sovereignty because the God the Creator is our Monarch's source of Authority.
Indeed Mr Moore, "something" in a Top-Down Constitutional-Monarchy MUST be supreme and notwithstanding the condescending reference to the "God crowd" in your 2nd paragraph - it's English law.
2) God in the USA Constitution - The USA's first Constitution -the Articles of Confederation 1777 with it's phrase "And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World " is likely be the "missing link" between the familiar 2nd " We the people ..." Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that Mr Moore blithely ignores in his leap of faith on why the Declaration of Indepence is opt/always included as part of the USA founding documents.
NB check article XI of these Articles for another insight re: Canada-US relations.
3a) Similarly to my point #1, the BNA Act 1867 (a piece of British Legislation) came with all the traditions of the UK built-in - no need to include all that source-of-sovereignty background in the original UK Bill about Confederation.
Only when the Patriation of our Amending Formulae and the Codification of new justiciable conditions & limits on our pre-existing Common Law Rights and Freedoms, set out terms that severed the UK Houses (ie NOT the Monarch) from future Canadian law-making made it necessary to state our position re: God's ultimate sovereignty.
If they didn't put it in then .... who knows what some smart-aleck broadcaster or lawyer might have started claiming as having sovereign attributes.
3b) The Term "Dominion". Somebody applied this perfectly good english-language word as a term describing the former Colonies that had "Responsible Government" systems.
See Dominion of New England 1686-89
-Chronicles of America
-Wiki
Before the Commonwealth, and before the Statute of Westminster 1931 and before the fabian syndicalists in French-clothing in the province of Quebec started getting overtly lingo-jingo-istic, it worked quite well for all of us who felt being a subject of a Benevolent Royal Autocrat in a Top-Down Constitutional Monarchy was just as satisfying and demanding (not hapless at all) as being a citizen of any Top-Down, Imperialist, war-machine-driven republic.
3c) Whose Dominion is it? Being able to answer to this fundamental question, legally, constitutionally and practically is to understand and appreciate the 'Essence of Canada".
With respect, Mr-Moore, anyone who is unable to interweave their politics and philosophy around that 3-pronged answer, should say nothing - never mind have an opinion column.
4) He haunts us still .... P.E.T.'s catholicism? that's you're unsubstantiated opinion.
David Smith (Ellis Don Construction, Liberal Party Superman) was one of the prime movers behind the inclusion in the Preamble. See link to page 106 from Rethinking church, state, and modernity: Canada between Europe and America By David Lyon, Marguerite Van Die
5) While you did not refer to the Jeffersonian phrase "Wall of Separation" between Church and State, you talk around it in your cross-border meanderings.
If I may opine, this phrase means that the government will not establish an official state religion (a la Rome's Christianity and Henry XIII's Church of England, etc etc) and compel the citizen/subjects to adhere to teachings of THAT religion (often while persecuting/ prosecuting/ executing everyone holding other beliefs).
6) I see Sam Mitnick, Cote St Luc, Que. has already noted in a Letter to the Editors, that being a non-believer is impossible. Anti-theists believe (with great faith and conviction) that there is no God.
Dear Mr Moore, be you a secular humanist, a cocky hubristic actor/broadcaster, a believer in the happenstance of creation, the accident of conscience, the collision of atoms that caused your consciousness as many young "science-based" philosophisers do (despite the ability of imperfect mankind to successfully theorize about energy, light, operation of the human anatomy, the stars and planets, electricity etc etc)
and
just because you and your fellow-scientists choose to be "ignore-ant" of the obvious imperfections in your explanations and patent imperfections in our ability to grasp the infinite and
just because thinking that there is no God makes you feel free to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it (since there is no ultimate accountability for your actions) - doesn't mean you must stop thinking what you are thinking.
It just means you are nescient.
Perhaps you had bad/biased teachers of your teacher's teachers.
Perhaps you jumped to some erroneous conclusions because it fit your own "world view"... or perhaps you just did incomplete research .
Did you ever feel motivated to do your own research on the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob
rce
REPLY from Columnist
John Moore
Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:28 AM
To: Robert Ede
Dear Robert:
Thanks for your e-mail. It always brings a smile to my lips when someone expends more words trying to refute my columns than I wrote in the first place. You might want to reconsider your style.You come across as blustery, overly wordy, condescending and very self important.
As to the points you make.
God does not appear in the U.S. constitution. This was deliberate because the founding fathers did not believe he belonged in government.
God's absence in the BNA Act is more accidental. But again, he does not appear because no-one thought it necessary. He does appear in the Charter of Rights because Trudeau was lobbied and Trudeau yielded owing to his faith (see Nino Ricci). This business of shoe horning God into government is a modern phenomena likely owing to the fact that as their numbers dwindle the faithful need the instrument of government to maintain the place of religion in society.
As for the notion that atheism is faith, it's a popular talking point but religion refers only to those who believe in something that cannot be proven.
And on your point about the capabilities of my teachers, I was taught by some of the best including several Jesuits so you might want to rethink that little taunt.
Thanks again for writing. Always good to be read.
Yours,
John Moore
Host of "Moore in the Morning" 5:30 to 9:00 Monday to Friday
NewsTalk 1010 CFRB Toronto
2 St-Clair Ave West, 2nd Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L6
john.moore@newstalk1010.com
www.newstalk1010.com
To: nationalpost
Dear Ed & Mr Moore
Re:The supreme citizen NatPost July13/10
We all are subject to the slight refinements added to authoritative thought by our teacher's teacher's teacher.
We often believe what we learned from someone described as an authority on a subject and sometimes take every one of their words as truth - particularly in our youth.
I assume Mr Moore is a regular, young-person's opinion contributor and that his work is no longer fact-checked - as such, and allowing for no one's mind to have perfect recall I submit that:
1) The preamble to our 1982 BNA/Constitution Act rightly includes God as the head of the "chain of command" of Canadian Sovereignty because the God the Creator is our Monarch's source of Authority.
Indeed Mr Moore, "something" in a Top-Down Constitutional-Monarchy MUST be supreme and notwithstanding the condescending reference to the "God crowd" in your 2nd paragraph - it's English law.
2) God in the USA Constitution - The USA's first Constitution -the Articles of Confederation 1777 with it's phrase "And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World " is likely be the "missing link" between the familiar 2nd " We the people ..." Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that Mr Moore blithely ignores in his leap of faith on why the Declaration of Indepence is opt/always included as part of the USA founding documents.
NB check article XI of these Articles for another insight re: Canada-US relations.
3a) Similarly to my point #1, the BNA Act 1867 (a piece of British Legislation) came with all the traditions of the UK built-in - no need to include all that source-of-sovereignty background in the original UK Bill about Confederation.
Only when the Patriation of our Amending Formulae and the Codification of new justiciable conditions & limits on our pre-existing Common Law Rights and Freedoms, set out terms that severed the UK Houses (ie NOT the Monarch) from future Canadian law-making made it necessary to state our position re: God's ultimate sovereignty.
If they didn't put it in then .... who knows what some smart-aleck broadcaster or lawyer might have started claiming as having sovereign attributes.
3b) The Term "Dominion". Somebody applied this perfectly good english-language word as a term describing the former Colonies that had "Responsible Government" systems.
See Dominion of New England 1686-89
-Chronicles of America
-Wiki
Before the Commonwealth, and before the Statute of Westminster 1931 and before the fabian syndicalists in French-clothing in the province of Quebec started getting overtly lingo-jingo-istic, it worked quite well for all of us who felt being a subject of a Benevolent Royal Autocrat in a Top-Down Constitutional Monarchy was just as satisfying and demanding (not hapless at all) as being a citizen of any Top-Down, Imperialist, war-machine-driven republic.
3c) Whose Dominion is it? Being able to answer to this fundamental question, legally, constitutionally and practically is to understand and appreciate the 'Essence of Canada".
With respect, Mr-Moore, anyone who is unable to interweave their politics and philosophy around that 3-pronged answer, should say nothing - never mind have an opinion column.
4) He haunts us still .... P.E.T.'s catholicism? that's you're unsubstantiated opinion.
David Smith (Ellis Don Construction, Liberal Party Superman) was one of the prime movers behind the inclusion in the Preamble. See link to page 106 from Rethinking church, state, and modernity: Canada between Europe and America By David Lyon, Marguerite Van Die
5) While you did not refer to the Jeffersonian phrase "Wall of Separation" between Church and State, you talk around it in your cross-border meanderings.
If I may opine, this phrase means that the government will not establish an official state religion (a la Rome's Christianity and Henry XIII's Church of England, etc etc) and compel the citizen/subjects to adhere to teachings of THAT religion (often while persecuting/ prosecuting/ executing everyone holding other beliefs).
6) I see Sam Mitnick, Cote St Luc, Que. has already noted in a Letter to the Editors, that being a non-believer is impossible. Anti-theists believe (with great faith and conviction) that there is no God.
Dear Mr Moore, be you a secular humanist, a cocky hubristic actor/broadcaster, a believer in the happenstance of creation, the accident of conscience, the collision of atoms that caused your consciousness as many young "science-based" philosophisers do (despite the ability of imperfect mankind to successfully theorize about energy, light, operation of the human anatomy, the stars and planets, electricity etc etc)
and
just because you and your fellow-scientists choose to be "ignore-ant" of the obvious imperfections in your explanations and patent imperfections in our ability to grasp the infinite and
just because thinking that there is no God makes you feel free to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it (since there is no ultimate accountability for your actions) - doesn't mean you must stop thinking what you are thinking.
It just means you are nescient.
Perhaps you had bad/biased teachers of your teacher's teachers.
Perhaps you jumped to some erroneous conclusions because it fit your own "world view"... or perhaps you just did incomplete research .
Did you ever feel motivated to do your own research on the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob
rce
REPLY from Columnist
John Moore
Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:28 AM
To: Robert Ede
Dear Robert:
Thanks for your e-mail. It always brings a smile to my lips when someone expends more words trying to refute my columns than I wrote in the first place. You might want to reconsider your style.You come across as blustery, overly wordy, condescending and very self important.
As to the points you make.
God does not appear in the U.S. constitution. This was deliberate because the founding fathers did not believe he belonged in government.
God's absence in the BNA Act is more accidental. But again, he does not appear because no-one thought it necessary. He does appear in the Charter of Rights because Trudeau was lobbied and Trudeau yielded owing to his faith (see Nino Ricci). This business of shoe horning God into government is a modern phenomena likely owing to the fact that as their numbers dwindle the faithful need the instrument of government to maintain the place of religion in society.
As for the notion that atheism is faith, it's a popular talking point but religion refers only to those who believe in something that cannot be proven.
And on your point about the capabilities of my teachers, I was taught by some of the best including several Jesuits so you might want to rethink that little taunt.
Thanks again for writing. Always good to be read.
Yours,
John Moore
Host of "Moore in the Morning" 5:30 to 9:00 Monday to Friday
NewsTalk 1010 CFRB Toronto
2 St-Clair Ave West, 2nd Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L6
john.moore@newstalk1010.com
www.newstalk1010.com
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 10:50 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home