Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
How's that state-church of yours; is it still funded by the government?
Passenger killed by air marshall
- Thread starter Jas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- air marshal passenger
How's that state-church of yours; is it still funded by the government?
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Good to know. Doing anything about seporating stat and church in your country?
As many as want to keep the church and state together under a monarchy.
Whatever I can.
Really?
Since only 10% believe this, you are saying that these 10% decide if the church and state together?
And as I mentioned above, those Danes who complain about it should first take a plank out of their eyes since their coins do contain Christian symbolism in a form that asserts a much stronger claim than "In God we Trust". Namely, it signifies that they are ruled by a monarch who gets his authority from God. I include here a picture with the relevant part circled:
Attachments
Before you start smearning yourself in peanut butter, you should get the facts straight.
The cross at the top of the crown does not symbolize that the Queen gets her authority from God. The last regent to be crowned, meaning that he got his authority from God, was Christian 8, who reigned from 1839-1848. The year after, Denmark got its first modern constitution.
The unit is called a "crown" for historical reasons. It symbolized that it was the regent who guaranteed that the coin was worth its nominal value. The first Krone was made by Christian IV, in 1618.
It always helps to get the full, correct story.
Do you admit that you were wrong about the Danish bank notes? None of the reliefs are religious in nature, correct?
Can you show me where those three crosses are on most coins?
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Other way around; the percentage of people who want to keep those two together belive that.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Hmm...historical reasons...hmm...I'm glad you are so open-minded and understanding about your country but all the significance of images and phrases in the US seem to fly over your head and all you see is religion.
If only 10% believe that, why is it still in effect?
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
You tell me.
Sounds to me like Danish democracy ain't what it's been cracked up to be.
Why not get the official story from your neighborhood pastor, Claus? After all, your taxes pay his salary and I expect he would feel an obligation to deliver value on behalf of your queen. I'll just wait here for the "official" answer.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, that doesn't really answer my question, unless you're trying to tell me that this website is the document that defines your government.
Looking through that site I see the Constitutional Act of June 1849, the Constitutional Act of June 5th 1953, and the Parliamentary Election Act of Denmark. Would you consider one of these documents the defining document of your government? Does the CA of 1849 take precident over CA of 1953 or the other way around? When there is a conflict between these three documents, which one is considered correct?
Also, as an aside, I noticed this passage:
It appears that your Queen does, indeed, hold an executive position in your government, as the Prime Minister appears to be an agent of the Monarch and is appointed and dismissed by the Monarch.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'm not trying to say anything about the Danish government, per se. What I'm trying to get at is a resolution of the apparent double stadard Claus is applying when he concludes that the US is not a secular country and his is. It cannot, as he says, be the appearance of religious reference in official documents since there is a direct reference to a specific religion in the Danish Constitution. Or rather, I think there is. What Claus says about his government does not match up with what his constitution says (or even his reference material in the site he linked), so I'm still a tad confused about what is true about the Danish government.
Your evasion is noted.
The website is the Parliament website. What more convincing site can you ask for?
The latter two. The 1849 Constitution was replaced by the 1953 Constitution.
The 1849 Constitution was replaced by the 1953 Constitution.
The 1849 Constitution was replaced by the 1953 Constitution. The 1953 Constitution is always the correct document.
Is there a conflict?
It appears that you have not been paying attention. The Queen holds only formal power: The government is decided from those political parties in the Parliament that can either muster a majority or a minority that won't be voted down. The PM is usually from the biggest party in government, but doesn't have to be. This is also decided by the parties involved. The PM also decides when he dissolves the government.
If this is different from what you imagine, I would love to hear how you think the political process is in Denmark.
Where do I do that?
I urge you to take your time and study the links. Not just the documents, but also the accompanying explanatory texts. They are very informative, and doesn't take long to read.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
The name(s) of the document(s) that define your government, which is what I asked for in the first place, which you finally have done. Thank you.
Just so I'm sure I understand, you're telling me that the older document, while of historical significance, is not the defining document of your government and should not be considered the final authority of your government as it exists today. Further, any discrepancies between the 1859 and 1953 documents are rendered moot because the 1953 version is now the correct authoritative document.
Is that correct?
I am merely reading the sources that you have provided for me. For example, from the Constitutional Act of 1953:
PART III
§ 12
Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitutional
Act, the King shall have supreme authority
in all the affairs of the Realm, and shall exercise
such supreme authority through the Ministers.
§ 13
The King shall not be answerable for his actions;
his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall
be responsible for the conduct of government;
their responsibility shall be defined by statute.
§ 14
The King shall appoint and dismiss the Prime
Minister and the other Ministers. He shall decide
upon the number of Ministers and upon the distribution
of the duties of government among them.
The signature of the King to resolutions relating
to legislation and government shall make such
resolutions valid, provided that the signature of
the King is accompanied by the signature or signatures
of one or more Ministers. A Minister who
has signed a resolution shall be responsible for
the resolution.
§ 12
Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitutional
Act, the King shall have supreme authority
in all the affairs of the Realm, and shall exercise
such supreme authority through the Ministers.
§ 13
The King shall not be answerable for his actions;
his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall
be responsible for the conduct of government;
their responsibility shall be defined by statute.
§ 14
The King shall appoint and dismiss the Prime
Minister and the other Ministers. He shall decide
upon the number of Ministers and upon the distribution
of the duties of government among them.
The signature of the King to resolutions relating
to legislation and government shall make such
resolutions valid, provided that the signature of
the King is accompanied by the signature or signatures
of one or more Ministers. A Minister who
has signed a resolution shall be responsible for
the resolution.
To ask the same question you have asked me, how much of this is to be taken literally? Or even seriously? The above passage says that "the King shall have supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm". Is that literally true or not?
-------------------------
Some of my various points are that:
- It doesn't matter what the DoI says concerning "God" or "Creator" in relation to the religious state of the US government. That document has no more legal standing than the Constitutional Act of 1859 does now. Less actually, if you consider that the DoI was never a legal document.
- It doesn't matter what the DoI says concerning "God" or "Creator" in relation to the Founding Fathers religious intent for the US government. There are much more legally binding documents that state their position much more succinctly. The US Constitution's First Amendment is one. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is another (my emphasis): "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- All documents are subject to interpretation, including your Constitution and our DoI. Holding our DoI to the strictist literal sence when it isn't even a binding legal document and your own Constitution to a more liberal interpretation when it is a binding legal document is an unfair and inappropriate double standard.
"Finally"? You asked where you could find them, and I provided.
Correct.
Correct. 1849, not 1859.
What part of "and shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers" don't you understand? Why did you leave it out?
Your quotes says that it is the Ministers (government) who exercises the authority of the affairs of the Realm. In §3 (which you must have read), it says:
The legislative authority is exercised through the government only.
Do you understand this?
The King can't make any agreements that requires the Folketing (parliament)'s consent.
Do you understand this?
Here's the part where the King signs the laws:
Do you understand this?
This is crucial, because one of the most important powers the King historically has had was the right to mint money. This is not within his power anymore; the Parliament makes the laws regarding this.
Do you understand this?
The people votes for the politicians who get a seat in the Parliament. The Parliament makes the laws. The King signs them.
Do you understand this?
The Election Act decides how to form Parliament, Government etc.
Do you understand this?
While the King may call for an election, the PM - who is found by popular election - has to do this, at least once every 4 years.
Do you understand this?
This means that the King cannot dismiss any member of the Parliament.
Do you understand this?
The Parliament constitutes itself. It is not the King who does this.
Do you understand this?
I can easily go on, but I don't want to overburden you. If you have more points you are unsure of, read the whole document first.
As it should be clear by now, we disagree.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286