Blessed Respite...John Rutter's anthem from the Royal Wedding, This is the day which the Lord hath made.



H/T BatB.

>>  Posted by Blazing Cat Fur at 12:05 PM |  15 comments  |  link to this post |  send email  | 
noel  – (1:14 PM)  

.
.
An absolute must-see/hear is Ezra on the Monarchy - SunNews.

In spite of its failings the Monarchy provides an ideal of goodness beyond which there is nothing better.

Like Judaism, I say.

Like the Christian Church, I say.

Also, we are beginning to witness the power of the light shining from the Bloggers in an ever threatening darkness.

In this wee part of the dry desert, we actually changed channels to watch the Wedding. Today, we rewatch between the SunNews shining.

Two long nights. Last night we got stuck at a stop-light. By this AM it had somehow changed to orange (from red), and we there it Left.
.
.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (1:23 PM)  

Very true Rev.

Paul  – (2:08 PM)  

... not sure how a caste / serf / class based society with all it's inherent walls and gates is an ideal that we should aspire to?

Seems to me, that a Republic lends itself more ideally to greater freedom and opportunity for every citizen.

I'd sure like to see that view promoted somewhere in Canada's media landscape because it NEVER is brought up.

been around the block  – (7:56 PM)  

For you, Paul (cross-posted at SDA this morning):

What Does the Royal Wedding Mean for Role of Monarchy in Britain?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/wedding2_04-29.html

(Possibly begging the question for Canada, but John Burns makes some compelling arguments for keeping the Monarchy -- and points out the bogus claims that the Royals cost Britains/Commonwealth citizens a pile of cash -- not so as compared to an elected leader. What he doesn't mention is that the Monarchy brings in more revenues in tourist dollars than they cost the taxpayers.)

Another beautiful anthem at the Royal Wedding was Ubi Caritas by Paul Mealor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQE4ryqdvMg

Ubi caritas et amor
Deus ibi est.

Where charity and love are, God is there.

been around the block  – (7:56 PM)  

BTW, thanks for posting this, BCF.

been around the block  – (8:00 PM)  

'Agreed, noel. Ezra's piece on the Monarchy was excellent. More Canadians need to be informed about our history, our actual history, not the revisionist pap/crap served up in recent "history" textbooks.

Does Canada Need the Monarchy? (SunTV, The Source, with Ezra Levant):

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/does-canada-need-the-monarchy/924440725001

Paul  – (10:11 PM)  

dunno Batb. I don't live in England so why should I care about the British crown.

To be candid, what's really the difference between the House of Windsor and the House of Saud?

They're both antediluvian social structures that promote the venal values of inequality as a normn. For any freedom loving person, the Monarchy represents an outdated social construct rightly useless in our times and long over-due to be thrown on the trash-heap of history.

What I do know, is that here in BC we citizens are still paying the Queen homage by way of surcharges on our transport costs of goods from the East which go directly to the English crown.

Why do I owe the English crown anything?

And it's worth noting that only with a contract based on heredity is there no expiry date or way of cancellation.

[Talk about dole and cronysim which the English did invent afterall.]

Like most things European, the British Monarchy is just another irrelevant notion played out to the extreme in Canada as a "tradition" that erodes individual freedom and supplants principles of a culture based on meritocracy.

Time for Canada to grow up and fully embrace the grand and great destiny of living in the new world, in my opinion.

Minicapt  – (1:55 AM)  

Paul
"... directly to the English crown." You must be reading crap lit from one of the 'progressive' social improvement groups.
"... supplants principles of a culture based on meritocracy. " There ain't no such thing; those solutions proposed as replacements usually involve massaging tender egos using term such as 'Objectivity" (which isn't) or 'Reason" (which seldom is exercised).
Tradition is just not very accommodating to vague wishful thinking on the part of those for whom personal advancement requires too much effort.

Cheers

Paul  – (11:22 AM)  

@Minicapt,
You must be reading crap lit from one of the 'progressive' social improvement groups.

I'm a conservative Republican. Is that a progressive social improvement group?

Tradition is just not very accommodating to vague wishful thinking on the part of those for whom personal advancement requires too much effort.

huh???

And to reiterate, the principle of a Monarchy is fundamentally to structure a society with venal values of special privileges and inequality between citizens.

noel  – (1:22 PM)  

.
.
"And to reiterate, the principle of a Monarchy is fundamentally to structure a society with venal values of special privileges and inequality between citizens."

And so the "progressive" almost ineluctable and mimetic aspiration towards the "even division of misery" finds itself embedded within the neo soft-socialism of some recent "right" thinking.

Despite the daily, bloody, venal values of the masses -- as seen on TV.

Despite the daily, special privileges of response made possible by the general blessings (or miseries!) immanent out of God's transcendence. Or, if you prefer, the Chances made possible in the contemporary cooling stew of quarks, gluons, and electrons.

A Republic has the risk (as does a Monarchy) of worshipping the "system" rather than its intent. But a Monarchy has the possibility of less bloody rectification, as opposed to a 50/50 civil war.

The answer, of course, is a best-of-all-worlds. And, as the wonderful Westminster Wedding makes plain for all to see and hear and feel and participate with, is that World beyond which there is nothing better conceived. That is the ideal. And that is the promise.

Amen.
.
.

Paul  – (2:37 PM)  

... my last comment (for now), on why the Monarchy totally sucks.

But first off, as far as the civil war thing goes; point of fact, we've evolved and so have Quebecers. (they're cross-eyed lovers anyhow.)

Otherwise, consider why the USA is so much more dynamic, expressive, resourceful, industrious, religious, optimistic, and fearless about solving problems as we are here in Canada.

In point of fact, it is the system that creates that kind of environment. In much the same way as free speech as a fundamental value can empower individuals to the greater good as compared to our limited version of that human right we're supposed to have here in Canada.

Without a doubt, a democratic republic is much better system than is a Monarchy, (or watered down version thereof), in the same way as in, a complete right of free speech that Americans enjoy can be compared to our limited so called version.

noel  – (2:58 PM)  

.
.
"And to reiterate, the principle of a Monarchy is fundamentally to structure a society with venal values of special privileges and inequality between citizens."

And so the "progressive" almost ineluctable and mimetic aspiration towards the "even division of misery" finds itself embedded within the neo soft-socialism of some recent "right" thinking.

Despite the daily, bloody, venal values of the masses -- as seen on TV.

Despite the daily, special privileges of response made possible by the general blessings (or miseries!) immanent out of God's transcendence. Or, if you prefer, the Chances made possible in the contemporary cooling stew of quarks, gluons, and electrons.

A Republic has the risk (as does a Monarchy) of worshipping the "system" rather than its intent. But a Monarchy has the possibility of less bloody rectification, as opposed to a 50/50 civil war.

The answer, of course, is a best-of-all-worlds. And, as the wonderful Westminster Wedding makes plain for all to see and hear and feel and participate with, is that World beyond which there is nothing better conceived. That is the ideal. And that is the promise.

Amen.
.
.

Paul  – (3:09 PM)  

Noel, just some feedback.

I really don't see the world in black and white or in simple labels and cathcisms that are supposed to have great meaning and relevance.

But rather in specturms of hues on a grey scale.

NB: it's actually a good thing that we all don't like purple.

noel  – (3:28 PM)  

.
.
OK, my last words, too. And it's not as if I, on occasion, don't look longingly to the South.

Especially when totally dingbatted members of our Monarchy abuse the uncommon reason, morals, and other things that would permit a society to flourish.

I think the horrendous abuses of liberty, like our CHRCs, are to be found in the USA, also. That the present President and crew could have made it to the obscuring Oval Office surely is evidence that a Republic can destroy itself as quickly as the poison of a Happy-Jack full-meal-deal.

BOtalks, like MOtalks and Happy-Jacks are lethal.
.
.

Paul  – (4:05 PM)  

Whether we all like it or not, Obama proved he was smarter, tougher and more capable in prevailing on the American public with his ideology than was McCain with his.

In other words, as far as the American people were concerned, he had the right stuff to lead the most powerful nation on the planet.

Another election is coming so it's now up to the Republicans to prove themselves and their ideas as being superior and of greater benefit to the American public.

That's the nature of the beast and the "why" freedom and democracy is so much more robust and fearless in the USA as compared to here.

Their politicians have to work a lot harder than ours to get elected and even harder at delivering on their promises.

[my faith is always in the resilience and ingenuity of freedom loving Americans. I can't quite say the same thing about Canada. It's just our colonial mindset is hard-wired to the past and not the future as a result of how we're governed.]

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

  © Blogger template me by me 2010

Back to TOP