Tuesday, June 21, 2005

The Dog Days of Summer Are Here

I am a rather discouraged blogger this first day of summer. For a while there reality was more weird than even my somewhat fevered imagination. Accordingly, all I had to do to write a scintillating post was to peruse daily developments at the Gomery Commission into Liberal malfeasance, or tune in to fellow Red Ensign bloggers to find out about exploding toads in Germany, which is not to be confused with Germans exploding Frogs, which is a different matter related to a German pastime during last century. But I digress.

The last few weeks have been relatively quiet. Disturbingly so.

Prime Minister Martin is strongly suggesting that he may keep parliament sitting through the dog days of summer in order to push through the same-sex marriage bill. This is a tactical move designed by the Liberals to take advantage of the very weakened political position in which the Conservative leader Stephen Harper finds himself as a result of testimony before the Gomery Commission sponsorship scandal pertaining to massive Liberal fiscal mismanagement and fraud, including reports of the mob (the Sicilian variety, not the rabble in the streets variety) running the Liberal party in Quebec, or is that running Quebec for the Liberal party.
It is so confusing.

Because it is so confusing, if you are a Canadian reading this, I know you are probably going to vote Liberal in the next federal election because Stephen Harper is scary and has a HIDDEN AGENDA. That is simple. If you not a Canadian and are puzzled by the above statements I really cannot help you out by making sense of it for you. You must simply accept what I say on faith. I understand that in many countries faith is still allowed. Unlike me, you may be lucky enough to reside in one of them.

Okay, that latter bit was a bit of hyperbole. Our prime minister is a devout Catholic. Don't ask me for proof, ask him. He will tell you it is so and if he forgets, his flacks will ensure compliant main stream media reporters will slip his Catholic devoutness into news stories on a regular basis. Do I actually have faith in his faith? Well, as a Catholic myself, I am reluctant to judge anyone's piety level.

I will say this. In my experience, devout co-religious would allow themselves to be torn asunder before describing themselves as devout. It would be the spiritual equivalent of taking on airs and no one in my Catholic circle tolerates spiritual snobs. The one thing you may not do in the Catholic Church is describe yourself as being in the least bit holy. I know fine Presbyterians who would say there is a good reason for this.

Frankly, I just wish Paul Martin was less devout and more faithful. Yes, I know we Catholics do go on about Dogma. Not Paul Martin though. He is the sort of man who has made it be known he never lets Dogma stand in the way of his political responsibilities. Not for him any reliance on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He takes the broader view, as infallibly defined by the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that for a Catholic the one thing the road to Hell could never be paved with is good intentions. I know my Presbyterian friends who are reading this are nodding their heads in solemn agreement, ... about Papists believing that I mean, not about it being true. At any rate our prime minister had better pray that Chesterton has more insight than the Presbyterians about the road to Hell, or he'll be in a very awkward spot one day. A person may well be able to buy their way into the Liberal cabinet, but there's no way you can buy your way into Heaven. At least, there isn't since Martin Luther put the old kibosh on the selling of indulgences in the sixteenth century.

Not that Mr. Martin would be opposed to the buying and selling of indulgences on principle. His principles appear remarkably flexible and as a service indulgence selling would be subject to the federal goods and services tax. And we know how Liberals lust for taxes, don't we.

The fact is that Canadians and Swedes stand together against all the nations of the world in believing that taxes are a virtue and not a damnable vice. It is the source of our northern attitude of moral superiority. I know, given all that I've written above, that this latter fact is just too weird for most of you accept right now, so we'll leave that odd story for another day.


At 10:44 pm, June 21, 2005 , Blogger Rebecca said...

Great post John. Loved it!

At 12:12 am, June 22, 2005 , Blogger John the Mad said...

Thanks Rebecca.

At 2:02 pm, June 22, 2005 , Blogger Kermit said...

If it gets too quiet in Cannukistan, feel free to take aim at any of my favorite 'South of the Border' targets. Take a free and easy shot at Dastardly Dickie Durbin.

The fools have surrounded the bog and I cannot escape.

Help me -

Kermit the Green

At 4:30 pm, June 22, 2005 , Blogger Temujin said...

"Our prime minister is a devout Catholic. Don't ask me for proof, ask him."

Priceless, John. I've got to replace my keyboard now because I shot pepsi out my nose all over it, after reading this post.

At 1:35 pm, June 23, 2005 , Blogger David Wozney said...

Bill C-38 contains the text: "NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:".

Do you believe "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" will enact legislation that is contrary to the Christian faith?

According to the Christian faith, marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) whereas homosexual relationships (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable. Also, "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife" and "she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband" (1 Corinthians 7:33-34).

By enacting Bill C-38, Queen Elizabeth II will have broken her coronation promise to maintain, to the utmost of her power, the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.

The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada

At 3:06 pm, June 23, 2005 , Blogger John the Mad said...

"Do you believe "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada ... Defender of the Faith" will enact legislation that is contrary to the Christian faith?"

Yes I do. There is precedence for the British royal house breaking their coronation oaths. The title Defender of the Faith was granted to Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X for his resistance to Lutheran doctrine.
As history records, his loyalty to the Catholic faith was short lived.

HMQ's representative in Canada, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson COC CD will certainly sign the bill into law should it pass in parliament.

Don't blame HMQ. Her political power vanished decades ago. Place the blame where it belongs - the unelected, unaccountable judiciary and a feckless governing party led by a Catholic poltroon.

At 7:12 pm, June 23, 2005 , Blogger Kermit said...

Down here in the bog, we leave off the religion references and call them DEMORATS! Sort of like a Political Nutria. At least a nonpolitical Nutria has fur that you can make coats out of.

K the green :) :) :)

At 8:42 am, June 24, 2005 , Blogger David Wozney said...

How has the British royal house previously broken a coronation oath? Do you have the text of any oaths? Like all men, Henry VIII sinned, but did he break a coronation oath?

QEII surrendered her sovereignty decades ago, not to any Canadians, but rather to Christ the King. Only God can change the presently-existing constitutional opposite-sex-definition marriage law.

At 2:41 pm, June 24, 2005 , Blogger John the Mad said...

"... her coronation promise to maintain, to the utmost of her power, the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel."

As a Catholic, I would assert that the true profession of the Gospel includes recognizing that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter and, accordingly, head of the Church on earth.

There is no biblical basis for the King/Queen of England to hold this role. By breaking with Rome Henry VII and his successors breached his coronation oath (which I presume contained this, or similar, wording).

I would say that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with Caesar, but only with God. divine and natural law take precendence over positive law.

At 2:07 pm, June 26, 2005 , Blogger David Wozney said...

I agree there is no scriptural requirement for the King/Queen of England to hold the title "Defender of the Faith". Also, Queen Elizabeth II does not have a monopoly when it comes to being a servant of God. Additionally, British Queens do not have a universal monopoly on the title "Queen". For example, some recognize the "Virgin Mary" as "Queen of Heaven".


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home