She seems like a nice lady but in my opinion the idea of Monarchy should die with her. I'm just a stupid American, but I would like to see this concept die completely, even if it's just ceremonial. No more Kings, no more Queens.

Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please
Even if in winter things tend to freeze
We've got the world monopoly on trees
And our country's bordered by three different seas

Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please
We invented the zipper, we've got expertise
We made insulin to combat disease
Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please

♫ Brits have got the monarchy
The US has the money
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The French have got the wine and cheese
Koalas chill with the Aussies
But I know that you wanna be Canadian ♫

Et si ce n'était pas assez
On a deux langues officielles:
L'anglais et le français
Ooh la la

Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please
Where else do you find mounted police
Or go to the hospital and not pay fees
Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please

And when freshwater is in high demand
We've got the world's largest supply on hand
So you know that we could make a pretty good friend
But it's even better if you can be...

♫ Brits have got the monarchy
The US has the money
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The French have got the wine and cheese
Koalas chill with the Aussies
But I know that you wanna be Canadian ♫

So you're thinking to yourself,
"How do I live in this beautiful country?"
Well we've got some steps for you to follow...

STEP 1: Lose the gun
STEP 2: Buy a canoe
STEP 3: Live multiculturally
STEP 4: You're ready, there is no more!

We got beavers, caribou and moose
We got buffalos, bears, and Canadian goose
And we're sorry about Celine Dion
But she did do that good song for James Cameron...

♫ Brits have got the monarchy
The US has the money
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The French have got the wine and cheese
Koalas chill with the Aussies
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The Greek chilled out with Socrates
Can't build a wall like the Chinese
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

In Kenya they have safaris
We've missed lots of other countries
But I know that you wanna be Canadian ♫ ♫

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

Actually, the reductio ad absurdum goes a little further. If you think the government "owns" the people because it can collect taxes from them with impunity, and you claim to really believe in the idea that liberty is indistinguishable from the unfettered exercise of property rights, then really, you should be defending any government exercise of power over its property, because it owns the people, and anything it does to its subjects is a legitimate exercise of liberty.

You already see them trotting out a form of this argument anytime there's a major management/labor dispute in the press. From there, you only really need to change a few words, and you wind up with almost exactly the rationale given by royalists in favor of hereditary monarchies in middle-age Europe.

Conservatives are more or less living out the final chapters of Animal Farm now. Their supposed dedication to principles born from a rebellion against authoritarian monarchies has, over the ensuing decades, been slowly twisted until it's become a rationale for establishing a new monarchy on this side of the Atlantic.

I keep waiting for the day I see a clip of some wingnut on Fox News declaring four legs good, two legs better that monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy because then those undesirable people we're always bitching about would truly know their place...

>> ^TheDreamingDragon:

And imagine our Gross National Product if we STOPPED tossing money at these other nations.America need Noone in the end.
But,I dream. America was an interesting experiment:give common people the Vote and they'll vote for the happiest Fiction they are shown,and soon our politicians will just do away with that illusion of choice and bring us into the new Corporate Feudalism where we'll be serfs enthralled to the yokes of global conglomerates.


I agree with the corporate feudalism.. With dubya the republicans already rediscovered medieval European monarchy.

As for tossing money at other nations though, 50c in the dollar is tossed in the form of explosives and shrapnel. It doesn't make friends. And that's why there is such a need for security, and THAT's why control is being lost to fear at the political level. (nothing demented right wingers like more than a red alert situation).

It's never too late to stop killing people. Eventually, they will stop trying to kill you. Then you save half your money!

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^chingalera:
>> ^alien_concept:
Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.

Duty?! Oh man dude, get your head outta those apps and gaming platforms and please~read some books!!

Hahahahaha. No, I just don't give a fuck. They're redundant. They have been redundant for hundreds of years. They cost us money, they make us money. The only thing that pisses me off is that she doesn't call control of her armies and overthrow the government, but that's a dream that will never happen. Sigh, fuck them all.


Can we still be all maddy-man at them though?? Pleeease!? They have FUCKING horrible taste, after all~
What in all FUCK is up with that giant slip-cover she be wearin' anyhow?? She cant button it because it has drapery hangers all over it!!

>> ^chingalera:

>> ^alien_concept:
Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.

Duty?! Oh man dude, get your head outta those apps and gaming platforms and please~read some books!!


Hahahahaha. No, I just don't give a fuck. They're redundant. They have been redundant for hundreds of years. They cost us money, they make us money. The only thing that pisses me off is that she doesn't call control of her armies and overthrow the government, but that's a dream that will never happen. Sigh, fuck them all.

>> ^alien_concept:

Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.


Duty?! Oh man dude, get your head outta those apps and gaming platforms and please~read some books!!

Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, cunt, whore, bitch, killer, slaveowner, FKKN News, MDK' to 'Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Monarchy, Abolish, Queen, fknnewz' - edited by Sagemind

Thanks @xxovercastxx and @Crosswords.

I've heard it said that Americans treat their flag like we (British) treat our monarchy, in that they're both the symbol of our nations. However, I don't know of anyone who particularly cares about our monarchy; I know there are people love them and a few hate them but most just shrug our shoulders and get on with real life. It seems that the American flag isn't treated with this apathy, but perhaps I only hear about nut-bugs (to varying degrees) because the 99% of normal Americans aren't newsworthy.

Obama's flag-pin is case in point: I heard about that, probably here on the Sift, and it seemed like half of America was up in arms at this "disrespectful" gesture, as if it mattered a damn. I realised that this was probably a small handful of far-right morons who generate a disproportionate amount of noise (e.g. Fox News). I've no idea actually how large a portion of the American public cared about his lapel.

Not that Britain doesn't have our own seemingly pointless moral/patriotic mobs, for example, the arbitrary whinge about not having war memorial symbols on England's football kit, which because a huge issue last November despite not having been an issue once before. It was a big deal in the shittier newspapers but if you'd polled the general population, I doubt many would have had a strong opinion.

FWIW, there's no actual patriotism in having a flag outside your house or in your press conference. Patriotism is personal sacrifice for national benefit, and flying a flag is neither. But this is a whole other kettle of plankton.

Well said. It is completely ironic that an un-elected representative of a monarch might be the last line of defence in protecting a "Democracy" like Canada from fraud and tyranny.
In reply to this comment by dgandhi:
>> ^vaire2ube:

something odd... about wanting transparency.... in a system where you still have "royal" anything?
sometimes things are just based on someone's whimsy. down with the queen!


I find it interesting that constitutional monarchies tend to be better than the "pure democracies" at being just, because a small, basically symbolic subset of their government is non-partisan.

The US is supposed to have a independent judiciary, but if you look at the Roberts court, it pretty clear that that process has broken down.

I think it's a good example of the practical application of irony. Sometimes systems which seem sub-optimal, or even self contradictory, actually work better than Ideal systems.

>> ^vaire2ube:

something odd... about wanting transparency.... in a system where you still have "royal" anything?
sometimes things are just based on someone's whimsy. down with the queen!


I find it interesting that constitutional monarchies tend to be better than the "pure democracies" at being just, because a small, basically symbolic subset of their government is non-partisan.

The US is supposed to have a independent judiciary, but if you look at the Roberts court, it pretty clear that that process has broken down.

I think it's a good example of the practical application of irony. Sometimes systems which seem sub-optimal, or even self contradictory, actually work better than Ideal systems.

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

quoting moore in that article

Our present financial ethos no longer even resembles conventional capitalism, which at least implies a brutal Darwinian free-for-all, however one-sided and unfair. Instead, we have a situation where the banks seem to be an untouchable monarchy beyond the reach of governmental restraint, much like the profligate court of Charles I.

U.S. should implement "Motion of no confidence" and government should have a delegation body (like a board of directors). One head of state is very much an archaic evolution from monarchy. We kicked George the 3rd and put Washington instead... There are more more headless bodies in the world thanks to the organic nature of the internet; I suspect government will be the same by mid-century.