The Crown March 12, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Politics and Law.add a comment
Source: Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public Policy, 5th ed., Robert J. Jackson and Doreen Jackson (Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2001)
Following British tradition, the supreme authority of the Canadian state resides in the sovereign. Government functions are carried out in the name of The Crown. In Britain, the Crown has been defined as “the sum total of governmental powers synonymous with the Executive.” In Canada, the term ‘Crown’ refers to the composite symbol of the institutions of the state. The Crown may be involved in court proceedings. It also assumes a variety of other duties and responsibilities – for example, government property may be held in name of the Crown.
The Crown retains some rights from the feudal period, but most of its present authority comes from constitutional and statute law. The few “prerogative powers” can be traced to the period of authoritarian rule in Great Britain when the Crown possessed wide discretionary authority. With the rise of Parliament and the gradual movement toward popular sovereignty, the authority of the Crown eroded to a very few reserve powers. Although Parliament and the political executive still govern in the name of the Crown, there is little question that the monarch is severely limited. Even the ability of the monarch to say on the throne is no longer a right. In the cases of both James II and Edward VII in Britain, it was clear that they could not retain their crowns unless the ministers and Parliament were prepared to accept them.
The reigning monarch, current Queen Elizabeth II, is the personal embodiment of the Crown. The contemporary functions of the monarch are largely ceremonial and non-partisan. The monarch reigns, but does not govern. As British constitutionalist Walter Bagehot put it, the monarch’s functions are mainly of the “dignified”, not the “efficient”, type. By this Bagehot meant that the monarch does not actually govern the country, but rather carries out a myriad of ceremonial responsibilities that generate mass support for the government, while the ministers carry out the “efficient” procedures that operate the machinery of government.
Know your Church Councils March 11, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in General.3 comments
The first seven eight!
- First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325
A.D.) – Formulated the first part of the Nicene Creed, defining the divinity of the Son of God - First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381
A.D.) – Formulated the second part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit - Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431
A.D.) – Defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and Mary as Theotokos - Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451
A.D.) – Defined Christ as Perfect God and Perfect Man in One Person - Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553
A.D.) – Re-confirmed the Doctines of the Trinity and Christ - Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 68o-681
A.D.) – Affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action - Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787
A.D.) – Affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expression of the Christian Faith. - Synod of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (A.D. July 2007
A.D.) – Anglo-Catholic Ninjas party it up in style.
Sentences, Propositions and Statements March 10, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Philosophy.add a comment
Sentences are linguistic entities. They obtain only in a natural language, such as English or Hebrew, or an artificial language, like Pascal or Fortran. The following is an English sentence.
Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun.
“Sentence” has two senses in the philosophy of language: sentence token and sentence type. Sentence tokens are concrete objects. They consist of ink marks on paper, sequences of sounds, or highlighted pixels on a screen. Sentence types are abstract objects, not located in space and time (assume, for the sake of argument, that abstract objects exist). They do not consist of written or spoken units. Rather, a type is the form of which a sentence is a particular of. How many sentence types and how many sentence tokens can you count among the following?
Snow is white.
Snow is white.
Coal is black.
Snow is white.
If you counted four tokens and two types, then you answered correctly. There are four instances of sentences and two kinds of sentences above. Think of the type as the instance (particular) and the token as the kind (form).
Sentences are typically bearers of propositions. Roughly speaking, the proposition is the meaning of the sentence, not the sentence itself. Sentences in different languages convey the same proposition only if they have the same meaning. Among the following, you can count four sentences (both type and token), but only one proposition.
Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun. [English]
Saturn je šestá planeta od slunce. [Czech]
Saturne est la sixième planète la plus éloignée du soleil. [French]
Saturn er den sjette planeten fra solen. [Norwegian]
Each sentence presents the same proposition, which, expressed in English, is Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun. Think of a proposition as the thought or belief the sentence conveys. The same thought or belief may be communicated through more than one language. These things are not linguistic entities, however (if anything, they are mental entities or abstract objects).
Now suppose you utter the sentence ‘The cat is on the mat’ (‘p‘ for short). Not only have you uttered the sentence ‘p‘, you have expressed the proposition that p, which is in turn related to the thought or belief that p. You may have also made the statement that p. Yet you do not always make this statement by uttering the sentence. Thus, if you simply repeat the sentence over and over for amusement, you are not telling anyone that the cat actually is on the mat (Contrast this with your answer to a friend’s question about the cat’s whereabouts).
So there are at least four things picked out by ‘p‘: 1) the sentence is a unit of language, 2) the proposition is what is meant by the sentence, 3) the statement is what is done with the sentence, and 4) the thought or belief is the mental state presented by the sentence.
Bibliography: Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey, by Roger Scruton (London: Penguin Books, 1994)
The Book of Concord March 10, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Theology.2 comments
Source: “A Brief Introduction to the Book of Concord”, The Book of Concord website
The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the fourth to the 16th century A.D. explained what they believed and taught on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. It includes, first, the three creeds which originated in the ancient church, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. It contains, secondly, the Reformation writings known as the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord.
The Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles came from the pen of Martin Luther; the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Treatise were written by Luther’s co-worker, the scholarly Phillip Melanchthon; the Formula of Concord was given its final form chiefly by Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, and Nickolaus Selnecker.
…II. The Lutheran Confessions
Among the particular Lutheran Confessions the two catechisms [Small and Large] of Dr. Martin Luther are the earliest. Luther published them in the spring of 1529 to help Pastors and parents give instruction in the chief parts of Christian doctrine.
The Augsburg Confession was written by Melanchthon in 1530. Emperor Charles V had invited the Lutheran princes and theologians to attend a meeting of government leaders at Augsburg. He wanted to discuss how the religious controversy in his empire could be settled, so that German Lutheran princes would join the imperial forces to keep the Turks out of Europe. The Augsburg Confession is composed of several documents which already existed but which were combined by Melanchthon to give a clear but conciliatory summary of the teachings and practices of the Lutheran pastors and congregations. It is to this day the basic Lutheran confession.
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession was published in 1531. After the Augsburg Confession had been read to the emperor, a committee of Roman catholic theologians prepared a reply called the confutation. The Apology defends the Augsburg Confession against the accusations of the Confutation.
The Smalcald Articles were written by Luther in late 1536. On June 4, 1536, Pope Paul III announced that a council would be held in Mantua beginning May 8, 1537, to deal with the concerns of the Protestants. The elector (or prince) of Saxony requested Luther to prepare some articles for discussion at the council. Luther indicated on which points Lutherans would stand fast and on which points a compromise might be possible. These articles were never used for their intended purpose, but Lutherans at once recognized their value as a statement of pure evangelical doctrine, and they were therefore included in The Book of Concord.
The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope was prepared by Melanchthon at the Protestant meeting at Smalcald in 1537 where Luther’s articles were to be discussed but, partly because Luther became ill, were never publicly presented to the assembly. Instead Melanchthon was requested to prepare a treatise which actually is an appendix to the Augsburg Confession.
The Formula of Concord was written a generation after Luther’s death. Serious controversies had arisen among theologians of the Augsburg Confession which threatened the very life of the Reformation. The Formula of Concord deals with these dissensions and presents the sound Biblical doctrine on the disputed issues.
The Rise of Common-law Coupling in Canada March 8, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Sociology.1 comment so far
Common-law coupling has been on the rise in Canada for decades now. Census data from 1981, 1991 and 2001 shows the following trends in family types:
| Family Type | 1981 | 1991 | 2001 |
| Married with children at home | 55.0% | 48.1% | 41.5% |
| Married without children at home | 28.1% | 29.2% | 29.1% |
| Lone parent families | 11.3% | 13.0% | 15.7% |
| Common law with children at home | 1.9% | 4.0% | 6.3% |
| Common law without children at home | 3.7% | 5.8% | 7.5% |
As of 2001, 13.8% of family types in Canada are of the common law variety. This figure only stood at 5.6% in 1981.
The growth of common-law coupling is even more apparent when the data on conjual relationships in general is considered. Between 1995 and 2001, the number of married couples increased by only 3.2%, from 6.2 million to 6.4 million. Over the same period, the number of common-law couples climbed from 1.0 million to 1.2 million, a 20% increase. Nationally, 16.0% of all conjugal relationships as of 2001 are common-law.
Underlying the national rate, it should be noted, is considerable regional variation. In Québec, more than one in four couples is in a common-law union – as high as the rate in Sweeden (30%) and higher than that in Norway (24.5%), Finland (18.7%) and France (17.5%). Indeed, the proportion in the rest of Canada excluding Québec is only 11.7%. [Common-law unions are also popular in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut].
Common-law coupling is, not surprisingly, a more popular option among those under the age of 40. As of 2001, more than 42% of men and more than 53% of women aged 20 to 29 can be expected to choose a common-law arrangement as their first union. This drops to 40.5% for men 42.3% for women aged 30 to 39 [the survey presumably covers men and women who have been partnered at least once, through marriage or common-law]. The rate among men and women aged 40 to 49 is only 28.4% and 26.7%, respectively, and is much lower still within older male and female cohorts.
Again, the pattern in Québec is exceptional. In that province, only 26% of women aged 30 to 39 in 2001 are expected to choose marriage as their first union, compared to 59% of women in the same age range in the other provinces. The remainder, 70% of Québec women aged 30 to 39, can be expected to start their first unions in common-law. This is more than twice the rate in the other provinces, at 34%.
Agreeable attitudes towards common-law coupling are more prevalent among domestic-born and non-religiously observant Canadians. A Statistics Canada survey shows that the odds of living in a common-law arrangement are 1.4 times higher for persons born in the country than for those born elsewhere. Non-religiously observant people (measured by rate of weekly attendance at a religious service) are 5.7 times more likely to be open to common-law living than those who attend religious services weekly.
Bibliography: Statistics Canada, “Profile of Canadian Households: Diversification Continues” 96F0030XIE2001003, 2001 Census of Population (2002), “Changing Conjugal Life in Canada” 89-576-XIE, General Social Survey – Cycle 15 (2002) and “Would you live common-law?”, Canadian Social Trends, Fall 2003, No. 70 (2003)
Next up in Sociology – the instability of common-law coupling
The Woman in Revelation 12 March 8, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Theology.1 comment so far
Source: “Marian Issues and Final Document”, “Mary:Grace and Hope in Christ”, by the Anglican- Roman Catholic International Commission (2004)
Para. 28. In highly symbolic language, full of scriptural imagery, the seer of Revelation describes the vision of a sign in heaven involving a woman, a dragon, and the woman’s child. The narrative of Revelation 12 serves to assure the reader of the ultimate victory of God’s faithful ones in times of persecution and eschatological struggle. In the course of history, the symbol of the woman has led to a variety of interpretations. Most scholars accept that the primary meaning of the woman is corporate: the people of God, whether Israel, the Church of Christ, or both. Moreover, the narrative style of the author suggests that the ‘full picture’ of the woman is attained only at the end of the book when the Church of Christ becomes the triumphant New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:1-3). The actual troubles of the author’s community are placed in the frame of history as a whole, which is the scene of the ongoing struggle between the faithful and their enemies, between good and evil, between God and Satan. The imagery of the offspring reminds us of the struggle in Genesis 3:15 between the serpent and the woman, between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed.4
Para. 29. Given this primary ecclesial interpretation of Revelation 12, is it still possible to find in it a secondary reference to Mary? The text does not explicitly identify the woman with Mary. It refers to the woman as the mother of the “male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”, a citation from Psalm 2 elsewhere in the New Testament applied to the Messiah as well as to the faithful people of God (cf. Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Acts 13:33 with Revelation 2:27). In view of this, some Patristic writers came to think of the mother of Jesus when reading this chapter.5 Given the place of the book of Revelation within the canon of Scripture, in which the different biblical images intertwine, the possibility arose of a more explicit interpretation, both individual and corporate, of Revelation 12, illuminating the place of Mary and the Church in the eschatological victory of the Messiah.
Footnotes
[4] The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu‘) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head,” is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring (neuter: to sperma), but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa conteret caput tuum (“she will strike at your head”). This feminine pronoun supported a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church. The Neo-Vulgate (1986), however, returns to the neuter ipsum, which refers to semen illius: “Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius; ipsum conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres calcaneum eius.”
[5] Cf. Epiphanius of Salamis (†402), Panarion 78.11; Quodvultdeus (†454) Sermones de Symbolo III, I.4-6; Oecumenius (†c.550) Commentarius in Apocalypsin 6.
Trends in Scholarly Writing on Family Structure Since 1977 in the Journal of Marriage and Family: Part 1 March 7, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Sociology.add a comment
Source: “Trends in Scholarly Writing on Family Structure Since 1977 in the Journal of Marriage and Family, Part One – The Shift: Scholarly Views of Family Structure Effects on Children, 1977-2002″, by Norval Glen and Thomas Sylvester for the Institute for American Values (2006)
What are the effects of family structure on children? Over the past few decades, that question has been a major source of controversy within family scholarship. Two opposed camps have squared off in debate. One perspective—call it “concerned” or pro-marriage—holds that the decline in marriage has been a troubling trend, especially for children. Its adherents argue that father absence and divorce tend to have important negative consequences for child well-being. The opposing perspective—call it “sanguine” or pro-family diversity—holds that families haven’t been weakened by divorce and unwed childbearing but have just changed in form. Advocates of the sanguine view argue that the supposed effects of family structure for children are exaggerated, if they exist at all. There are of course views intermediate to these two, including that negative family structure effects on children exist but only because other institutions have not adapted to changes in the family.
In the 1970s, while the divorce rate was skyrocketing, the sanguine view seemed ascendant among family scholars. By the mid-1980s, however, some observers noticed an apparent shift underway. In 1987, the Journal of Family Issues published 18 essays by prominent scholars in a special edition on “The State of the American Family.” The majority of commentaries expressed more concern than optimism about recent increases in divorce and single-parenting.
…Since the dramatic shifts in children’s living arrangements began four decades ago, scholars have had time to study the effects of divorce and single parenting. Most family scholars apparently now agree that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that children tend to do best when they grow up with their own two married parents, so long as the marriage is not marred by violence or serious conflict. The debate now centers on the exact nature and size of family structure effects and on whether or not societal adjustment to new family forms can substantially reduce their negative effects…
Anglo-Catholic Ninja Weapons and Gear: Part 1 March 7, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in General.4 comments
The Real Ultimate Anglo-Catholic, our Thurible Master Ninja, has listed a few Anglo-Catholic weapons and gear:
- The Anglican Breviary
- The Biretta
- Altar at St. Clement’s in Philadelphia (not sure how the AC ninja is supposed to conceal this)
- Gin Martinis (more than one per AC ninja, presumably)
It’s definitely a RUAC (Real Ultimate Anglo-Catholic) selection. The thing is, these weapons are rather difficult to wield and, frankly, some of them are not even that deadly. If an AC ninja came accross a Calvinist, would he whip out his gin martini? The Calvinist would probably call him a wussy boy and smack him around town with a fine bottle of single-malt whiskey (just look at crazy Reformed lad RC Sproul Jr. checking out his collection). So, with due respect to the Master, AC ninjas have to be better armed, especially when on patrol in low-church zones. To develop dexterity and flexibilty at an early stage , we suggest that acolytes begin training with the…
Double-bladed crosier
Do not try this at home boys and girls. Seek the guidance of an Anglo-Catholic ninja master please.
Zeno of Elea on Plurality March 7, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Philosophy.add a comment
Question: What were Zeno of Elea’s reasons for claiming that “if things are many, they must be both small and large – so small as to have no size and so large as to be infinite”? (Diels and Kranz, Zeno of Elea fragments 1 – 2)
Answer: Zeno’s argument has two limbs, the first of which is not preserved in its entirety. If things are many (if there is plurality), these units would either have no magnitude or magnitude.
- If there are many things, then there must be ultimate parts that are not themselves divisible into parts. If they were divisible, then they would be composites, in which case the parts that make up composites would be more ultimate than the things they make up. So the most ultimate parts are not divisible. If they are indivisible, then they have no size, for size implies divisibility. Everything is therefore is made of parts with no magnitude. Anything without magnitude is infinitely small. A summation of infinitely small parts is also an infinitely small thing. So even a composite made up of ultimate parts is an infinitely small thing. In fact, since the result of adding or subtracting a sizeless object from anything is no change at all, sizeless object are, literally, nothing. Therefore all things are infinitely small (they have no magnitude at all) or consist of things that are infinitely small.
- What exists must have size. Something that has size can change the size of anything it is added or subtracted to (or else the first thing would be, literally, nothing). Whatever has size is divisible into parts. Those parts, no matter how small, have size and so they are divisible. The parts consist of parts that are themselves divisible, and so on, ad infinitum. Everything therefore is made up of parts with unlimited magnitude. Anything with unlimited magnitude is infinitely large. Therefore all things are infinitely large (they have unlimited magnitude) or consist of things that are infinitely large.
Since nothing can be both infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, the claim that there are many things is false. There is only one thing. That thing is not divisible (it is not even in space and time). Each unit has no magnitude or magnitude.
- If no magnitude, then each unit is infinitely small.
- If magnitude, then each unit has size and thickness. It can be divided into parts, each of which is at a certain distance from other parts (if there is a plurality of things, they must be separable in space). This goes on ad infinitum, since there is no subdivision of things so small it cannot be divided – that is, so small it does not have one part and another part at a certain distance from each other.
In case of emergency, pray Rosary March 6, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in General.add a comment
Last Friday, I officially left my position as a policy analyst for an energy industry association. While I was cleaning out the drawers in my former desk, I pinned a give-away Rosary to the outer cubicle wall, along with prayer instructions and a history of the prayer. Beside it, I put up a sign saying, in bold red letters:
ATTENTION:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY,
PRAY ROSARY
(and use nearest fire exit, not nearest elevator)
