Ontario Turns Hard Left??

[davewindsor]

Canada does not and has not had a State Church.

Technically speaking, that statement is incorrect. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State in Canada and Head of the Church of England [[the Anglican Church)--a right bestowed upon English Monarchs since Henry VIII.

In 1953, the Canadian parliament changed the Royal Style and Titles Act to be, in English: 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,^[3] Elizabeth II [[12 December 1985), Royal Style and Titles Act, Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, retrieved 23 September 2009


"Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Style and Titles Act of Canada would make her head of the Anglican Church in Canada. Thus, being Head of State in Canada and Head of the Anglican Church makes the Anglican Church a "State Church" in Canada, technically speaking.

[Pat001]

Answer to the question, "Ontario turns hard left?

Who cares? It's Canada.

[Canadian Visitor]

Answer to the question, "Ontario turns hard left?

Who cares? It's Canada.

Perhaps you missed this on the front page of the forum.

1. 
   SINCE 1997
   Where all things great and small regarding the
   Fabulous Detroit-Windsor International Metropolis are Discussed.
   Registration is free and required for posting.
   JOIN HERE
   

You'll notice the word Windsor, alongside Detroit. You may have missed that Windsor is in Canada.

That aside, as your immediate neighbour and principal trading partner, you might take an interest seeing as what we do, affects what happens to you [[and vice versa).

Or you could be myopic and insular as your post suggests.

[Király]

"Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Style and Titles Act of Canada would make her head of the Anglican Church in Canada. Thus, being Head of State in Canada and Head of the Anglican Church makes the Anglican Church a "State Church" in Canada, technically speaking.

I disagree with this analysis. The Church of England as the state church of Canada was abolished in 1854, 23 years before Confederation, while the Province of Canada was still a British colony. There has never been a state church in Canada since then. QEII may be the "Defender of the Faith" but she is not "Defender of Canada's faith", because there is no such thing.

The Royal Style and Titles Act in no way established the Church of England as Canada's state church.

[davewindsor]

I disagree with this analysis. The Church of England as the state church of Canada was abolished in 1854, 23 years before Confederation, while the Province of Canada was still a British colony. There has never been a state church in Canada since then. QEII may be the "Defender of the Faith" but she is not "Defender of Canada's faith", because there is no such thing.

The Royal Style and Titles Act in no way established the Church of England as Canada's state church.

On the Sovereign's role in the Church of England and "Defender of the Faith", it says,
"The Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. ...
There are many examples of the relationship between the established Church and the State.
Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.

The connection between Church and State is also symbolised by the fact that the 'Lords Spiritual' [[consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 diocesan bishops) sit in the House of Lords. Parish priests also take an oath of allegiance to The Queen."https://web.archive.org/web/20080307003413/http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page4708.asp

What do you think "Defender of the faith" refers to in Canada's Royal Style and Titles Act, 1985? Why didn't the Canadian Parliament remove it if the sovereign isn't a ceremonial head of the Anglican faith? Read it again: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/st...85-c-r-12.html

Do you think "Defender of the faith" means something other than referring to the Anglican Christian Faith? What do you think the word "defender" means?

If there is no relationship between the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada, then why does Canada's Anglican primate attend the Lambeth Conferences convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury to vote on topics such as allowing women or gay priests?

If there is no connection between the two churches, why was it that until 1955 the Anglican Church of Canada was known as the "Church of England in the Dominion of Canada" or simply the "Church of England in Canada".

Again, as I said in my previous post, I'm talking about technicalities, not practicalities. Practically speaking, the sovereign is not running a "state church". The Anglican Church of Canada is self-governing, just like the Canadian Parliament is self-governing when Canadians vote for their head of government and the head of government of Canada votes bills into laws.

To put this another way. Speeding at 115km an hour on the 401 where the speed limit is 100km is illegal, but it is very rare that the police will enforce the speed limit at 115km if you see them at the side of the road. Now, if you go 130km or more, chances are you'll get a ticket if there's no one else on the highway.

Just because the sovereign doesn't enforce her legal right to rule, make laws, have people arrested, collect taxes, appoint her children as governors, etc., does not mean her right ceases to exist or the power is "spent". Just like a police officer could write you up a ticket for traveling at 104km an hour on the 401 and legally win in court. Just because they haven't enforced it in a long time doesn't mean the power ceases to exist or is "spent".

In sum, does the Queen have legal and religious authority in Canada? Legally speaking, yes. Those rights are on the books and written as law. She can "defend" the faith as a religious authority. Why? Because it's the law in Canada that says so. Does she exercise those rights? No, because it would most likely diminish the good will between the public and the Queen.

[Király]

Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission

Complete bunk.

Unless you are talking about the UK where this is true, but we were talking about Canada, not the UK.

None of what you wrote about the relationship between the Monarchy of Canada and the Anglican Church in any way makes the Anglican Church the state church of Canada. There is no state church in Canada and there has not been since colonial times.

[davewindsor]

Complete bunk.

Unless you are talking about the UK where this is true, but we were talking about Canada, not the UK.

None of what you wrote about the relationship between the Monarchy of Canada and the Anglican Church in any way makes the Anglican Church the state church of Canada. There is no state church in Canada and there has not been since colonial times.

Are you trying to be a Monty Python skit?

Are you an Anglican? Every Anglican I know calls the Queen the Supreme Head of the Anglican Church in Canada just like every Roman Catholic calls the Pope in Rome the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada.

Why is the Monarch the Supreme Head? Because in 1534, King Henry VIII passed a Supremacy Act of Parliament making the Church of England a state church removing the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as head of the Church of England and replacing himself and subsequent monarchs as head, creating a new non-Roman Catholic Christian denomination.

In 1544, English parliament conferred the title of “Defender of the Faith” to Henry VIII and all his successors on the English throne. Moving up to modern times, the Canadian parliament passed the Royal Style and Titles Act calling the Queen "Defender of the Faith". Do you see the relationship yet?

In 1611, King James created a new translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek for his state Anglican Church called the King James Bible, which is accepted by many religious organizations such as the Gideons who put those free King James bibles in the hotel nightstand.

If you study different bible translations and compare the King James bible with other modern Christian bibles, you'll know that there are a lot of deleted verses from the King James bible because they don't agree with the King James translation. Is this state Church propaganda? That's up for you to decide.

The Anglican Church is premised on being a state church with the Monarch as head, just like the Pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Royal Style and Titles Act in Canada says the Queen is the "Defender of the Faith", a title originally granted to the monarch in the Royal Supremacy Act in England. The Queen in Canada is technically the state. If the Queen is head of the Anglican Church, it is technically a state Church, even though the Canadian Anglican Church is self-governing.

[Király]

If the Queen is head of the Anglican Church, it is technically a state Church, even though the Canadian Anglican Church is self-governing.

Your premise is flawed. Yes the Queen is the head of state of Canada, and the Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church of Canada. But those two facts do not combine to make the Anglican Church of Canada the state church of Canada.

And besides, The title "Defender of the Faith" in the Canadian style of the monarch does NOT refer to the Anglican Church of Canada. Prime Minister St. Laurent had this to say about it when the royal title and style was established in 1953:

The rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words, "Defender of the Faith". In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise providence, and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.

That's from the Wikipedia article you linked in your own post. There is no state church of Canada, period, the end.

[davewindsor]

Your premise is flawed. Yes the Queen is the head of state of Canada, and the Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church of Canada. But those two facts do not combine to make the Anglican Church of Canada the state church of Canada.

Are you an Atheist or Roman Catholic?

The Queen is not only head of state, but the Queen is the state in the formal sense in Canada.

If you commit a crime in Canada, you are prosecuted, not by a District Attorney like in the US, but a "Crown" Attorney because you are committing a crime against the Queen, not against The People.

The case would be called Regina [[Regina from latin meaning the Queen or Rex if there's a King) vs. Kiraly, not The Public vs. Kiraly as in the US.

Public land is called "Crown" land.

Public corporations are called "Crown" corporations.

Institutions like the Federal Government and Provincial Government have a Governor General and Lieutenant Governor who are representatives of the Queen in the formal sense.

The Queen's face is on all Canadian currency--nickels, dimes, quarters, etc.

Even though Canada is self-governing, the Queen is the state. The Queen's ancestors founded the Anglican church as a new Christian denomination and made it a state Church. It is a state made denomination. Through the Queen, it is a "state" church in Canada, technically.

This is reaffirmed in Canada by the title that the Queen is "Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Styles and Titles Act of Canada, which I've already showed you historically where it came from and what it means.

That wikipedia quote is referring to the Queen as Defender of the Anglican Christian faith in Canada. Period. The end.

[detroitbob]

The Anglican Church of Canada is part of the Anglican Communion but each member of the Communion is independent of the other with their own governing bodies...i.e. in the United States the ECUSA [[Episcopal church) is governed by General Convention and elects a Presiding bishop or Primate for a term of [[I believe 10 years). The Convention consists of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies [[with members elected by each diocese). A similar set up occurs in Canada.