The supremacy of God and the Queen’s oath

29 Jun 2015 The supremacy of God and the Queen’s oath

The Supreme Court of Canada decided to side with tradition by killing the bid to remove the Queen from the oath of Canadian citizenship. On the other hand, the court decided to forego the tradition argument when they decided to rule against the mayor of Saguenay and strike down as unconstitutional his Christian prayer before town council meetings.

The Supreme Court refuses to recognize the importance of the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God”. But that same Court, in a decision two months before, recognizes pledging an oath to the queen as relevant. The court is contradicting itself. As the legal maxim states: Jurare est Deum in testum vocare, et est actus divinu cultus. Translation: To swear is to call God to witness and is an act of religion.

Here are some of the questions asked of the queen at her coronation:

  • Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
  • Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
  • Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

Her answer: “The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.”

By obliging newcomers to Canada to pledge an oath to a queen who is herself the maintainer of the laws of God, the court is actually recognizing that ‘Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God’. That ‘supremacy of God’ statement is reflected in the Queen’s coronation oath.

Separation of religion and State? Separation of God and State? Impossible. It just can’t be done. Because God created man as a religious being, man’s whole life is governed by God, including the state by which men try to govern. The question is never, “Will the State be religious?” The question is, “Which religion will the State subscribe to?”.

Judex bonus nihil ex arbitrio suo faciat, nec propostione domesticae voluntatis, sed juxta legis et jura pronunciet. Translation: A good judge should do nothing from his own judgment, or from the dictates of his private wishes; but he should pronounce according to law and justice.

Canadian law (and culture and society) yet has the Christian religion written all over it. But time and time again liberal judges act upon their personal desires to see Canada become not an irreligious country but a country that does not recognize the supremacy of the Triune God.

– Maximus


Enjoyed this article?

Never miss an article!

Sign up for our newsletter to stay informed about everything ARPA!

Tags:
No Comments

Post A Comment