As Shantinik has pointed out the English monarch is the head of the Church of England as is the Pope head of the Roman Church. One of main the differences being that the British monarch is NOT infallible (mind you, I am sure that Henry Rex didn't necessarily think this) in spirtual matters of the church (as the Roman Pope).

The separation evolved (oops... I have to be careful with that word here)also in part to the rise of the absolutist monarchist state. It was felt in Protestant and Catholic countries alike. The latter through the expulsion of the Jesuits in Spain and France in the early 18th century.
It did not however occur in Tsarist Russia where the reigning autocrat actually controlled and embodied the living Church and had final word on all spiritual matters.

Apple,
A lot of people believe that the Reformation started with Luther, Calvin etc... and that England separated from the Pope with Henry VIII. While it's true that officially England broke with Rome during Henry's reign, actual reform was started and in progress as early as the 14th century with John Wycliff. A fascinating person. He was the first to translate the Bible into English so that the common people could understand it. He had very radical beliefs at the time.
Sorry, Gryphon, I got off topic again. It seems the more questions that are answered the more questions raised.
justme

Then I go back to a statement I made earlier in the thread - if separation, true non-mingling of anything of the religious sphere, with that of the governmental sphere, why wasn't that spelled out bluntly?

No problem, these things evolve. This is actually Ariel's thread, but is seems she's disappeared.

And answer same as before, they thought they DID, and they couldn't be more blunt than they were (which the authors actually said, before, during, and after, and the Senate having voted down seven different attempts to mean something different, such as prevent establishment of a particular sect or denomination.)

The word "separation", again as already noted, meant something different in the late 18th century context -- it is what the Episcopal Church did with the Anglican Church.

Or she's wiser than all of us, and decided that this could die a well-deserved death.

as he keeps posting........

Of course.

Quotes Jolly,

Had they known what it would have take to convince the likes of a Jolly, I'm sure they would have been as blunt as a baseball bat!

Awww...Jolly is just a strict constructionist with the Constitution. If something is not in there, he will assume it was meant to be there.

Why?...because "reason" and not religious beliefs would be the governing principle behind decision making in the New World. These people were optimists; they believed that reason and rational thought would lead the civilisation out of the darkness of the past.

And that is true, but....

If you are a fish, how can you escape the influence of the ocean?

Debating with you, Jolly, is like debating with a Marxist-Leninist or an LDS missionary- you arrive with all the answers prepared. :p

If you're a Republican fish, your only influence is Bush and he's not real big on saving oceans, just poluting them.

Answers can come easier when you don't understand the questions.

Ken

This proves they had to be optimists- they could not have ever forseen that the likes of "Baby Bush" (that's how we call him up here) would ever make it to the White House.

Listen, one of the first things he did as President was to safeguard our water supply. He's assured us that we'll have all the arsenic we'll need.

Ken

You mean in case Hillary ever gets elected?

Hillary is one of those phenomena I'll never understand... I'm not sure who the Republican equivalent would be - Jesse Helms?? Sorry -- off subject -- back to the founding fathers...

Ken

So does that mean y'all are predjudiced against Marxists, Mormons, or both? :p

Tenacity, Gentlemen, tenacity. Faith is always rewarded.

All God's children...

Ken

Not too crazy about Leninists but I don't mind Marxists....as to Mormons, as long as they don't come to my door.

Seventh Day Adventists, Latter Day Saints. Christian Scientists, Scientologists. Can't we all just get along?

Generally we do and can continue to do as long as we keep religion to ourselves and leave it the hell out of politics and the affairs of state.

That's the problem with Canadians. No guns. No raging Constitutional debates. Too much snow. Too many moose, or is that mooses?

No fun at all. :p

It's meese.



I love Canada.

Jodi

(Actually, I do too - especially the Nunavik, but I ain't tellin')

How come the Canadians who did not rebel against the British Monarchy and the assumption (nominal at least) of spiritual authority accompanying and justifying that of the Throne - are now so much more laid back than we are about Separation of Church and State?? :rolleyes:

Seems like one of History's great ironies!

Hey, Renauda does it have anything to do with Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and the Masons?? Seriously.


Ariel

Don't need a gun when a hockey stick will do... winter is fun gives variety to life...and its true "some 'mericans" do not have a clue what goes on in Canadian politics, seems to me the Quebec issue and the soon to be Western Canada issue qualify as raging constitutional issues.

No fun eh?...I guess you've never met a Newfoundlander... and how many countries can boast to have a beaver on their nickle?

one moose, two moose, ten moose- a multitude of heavenly moose. :p

Ariel wrote

How come the Canadians who did not rebel against the British Monarchy and the assumption (nominal at least) of spiritual authority accompanying and justifying that of the Throne - are now so much more laid back than we are about Separation of Church and State??

Seems like one of History's great ironies!

Hey, Renauda does it have anything to do with Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and the Masons?? Seriously.[/b][/b]

Our founders were, for the most part, foul mouthed drunkards who from time to time went to church. We were more concerned with annexation by the Fenian republicans to the south of us than fear of the church. Also many of the Scots who settled here were not Church of England but rather Presbyterian who had suffered persecution by the English.

Although we have had a few provincial politicians in English Canada who liked to mix religion and politics its never gotten very far at the federal level. I am grateful to Quebec for keeping federal politics secular.

Canada also had Pierre Trudeau who made it priority to keep the two separate and build the country as a truly multicultural and multiethinic nation. Although Canada may have be founded as Christian country in 1867, I doubt whether anyone living here today would consider it still to be a Christian country.

Hasn't got anything to do with Mithraism, Zoroastrianism or Masonry either. Overall we just do not identify religion and nationality as do Americans although we are just as happy to have freedom from religion as you.

Sorry for this very off-topic question, but does this thread beat KOTH?

Not that I'm complaining or anything. I have enjoyed following this thread.