Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Ginsy

Gender Neutral National Anthem

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's a pretty arrogant, and undemocratic view.

He's not completely wrong. Although we no longer must swear an oath on the bible when in court (you can now swear on a book of your own choice), official holidays in Canada still reflect Christian traditions.

National and Provincial "Christian" Holidays-
Good Friday
Easter Monday
Christmas Day
Boxing Day

We also still maintain a separate Catholic School system.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

He's not completely wrong.

No, there is definitely something there but delivering the message that way is off-putting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure but I think the phrase "In all of us command" is grammatically incorrect? Seems I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I realize that I speak with a voice from the previous millennium and that good grammar is bad form nowadays. Nevertheless, can anyone explain to me the grammatical structure of “in all of us command”? How can an objective pronoun (us) take the place of a possessive noun (sons’)?

Transfer this construction to a simple sentence: “Let’s send all of us money to Panama to avoid most of us taxes.” Or, “Let’s eat all of us candy before the rest come.” Has anyone ever spoken like this?

Altering the national anthem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Not sure but I think the phrase "In all of us command" is grammatically incorrect? Seems I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

Yes....if choosing to be grammatically incorrect to be politically correct, why not go all hip-hop on it ?

"In all we be like straight up command"

Just say Drake wrote it.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes....if choosing to be grammatically incorrect to be politically correct, why not go all hip-hop on it ?

"In all we be like straight up command"

Just say Drake wrote it.

 

"Yo, Canada! It's my home, it's my place, it's my native land!
We're talkin true love, for all my homies,
In all we be like straight up command!
Uh! Yeah..."
 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

He's not completely wrong. Although we no longer must swear an oath on the bible when in court (you can now swear on a book of your own choice), official holidays in Canada still reflect Christian traditions.

National and Provincial "Christian" Holidays-
Good Friday
Easter Monday
Christmas Day
Boxing Day

 

Agreed.  We should get rid of all state mandated holidays and instead give the citizens of Canada more freedom to choose what holidays they want to take off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PIK said:

Whatever mike, because that mean nothing. We are a christian country, period,no matter what you libs say. And on the anthem, when the military war cemeteries are full of females and transgender and non white people ,then we'll talk about changing it. And for anyone that screams about white privilege check out those same cemeteries.

I'm not a liberal, and I say screw Christianity, along with Islam, Judaism, and the rest of them.  Canada can stick whatever it wants in the anthem, as long as it keeps the churches out of my state.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Not sure but I think the phrase "In all of us command" is grammatically incorrect? Seems I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I realize that I speak with a voice from the previous millennium and that good grammar is bad form nowadays. Nevertheless, can anyone explain to me the grammatical structure of “in all of us command”? How can an objective pronoun (us) take the place of a possessive noun (sons’)?

Transfer this construction to a simple sentence: “Let’s send all of us money to Panama to avoid most of us taxes.” Or, “Let’s eat all of us candy before the rest come.” Has anyone ever spoken like this?

Altering the national anthem

The new wording is rather similar to the original wording:

Weir's original lyrics from 1908 contained no religious references and used the phrase "thou dost in us command" before they were changed by Weir in 1914 to read "in all thy sons command".[1][10][11][12] In 1926, a fourth verse of a religious nature was added.[13]

(from Wikipedia)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess god is next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wow.  Well you gave me a good example.  Here's another one: attending church.  Clinton and Obama went to church all the time.  Why ?  I suspect it was virtue signalling.

I don't know. If you're religious by nature you go to church. Certainly when some politicians shows up at a church it is virtue signalling. I think the evidence is Obama went to church often before he got into politics. I don't know about the Clinton's but -- Arkansas.... I wouldn't doubt they've been going to church a lot since they were born.  Now if they contact the press and have them standing by to take video of them going to church that might qualify. Certainly anything Trump says about religion is virtue signalling since I don't believe for one second he believes in God.

Trudeau or Kathleen Wynne showing up at mosques and temples is definitely virtue signalling. Harper showing up at a temple and wearing some goofy scarf on his head was too.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PIK said:

So I guess god is next?

God is a personal thing.  An individual should be free, within the confines of the law, to practice their religion in anyway they see fit.  They have no right whatsoever to expect anyone else to meet any of the requirements of their religion.  So really, God should not be mentioned in the anthem. 

I'm not losing any sleep though.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

Harper showing up at a temple and wearing some goofy scarf on his head was too.

That 'goofy hat' will get you into heaven, boyo.  So will a MAGA hat.  Lots of people in the escalator down to hell have "Justin" hats on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

We should get rid of all state mandated holidays and instead give the citizens of Canada more freedom to choose what holidays they want to take off.

Perhaps a tangent worthy of its own thread. I see some value in common holidays, just like having a work week with weekends off. One could argue that New Years day has a specific cultural meaning, even with some ancient religious significance. Certainly there are many jobs where total flexible hours are feasible, but most require some level of coordination with others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Perhaps a tangent worthy of its own thread. I see some value in common holidays, just like having a work week with weekends off. One could argue that New Years day has a specific cultural meaning, even with some ancient religious significance. Certainly there are many jobs where total flexible hours are feasible, but most require some level of coordination with others.

There is merit in coordinating holidays from an efficiency standpoint. But you could allow companies, individuals or government departments to decide which holidays. Certainly the government requiring that corporations give holidays on specific days (such as Easter, Christmas, etc.) unless those companies pay their employees extra (and thus making it unprofitable for the employers to do so in most cases) is ridiculous.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

There is merit in coordinating holidays from an efficiency standpoint.

It is not only an efficiency standpoint for the employer, it is about the employees as well. Yes, you can take the attitude that employees are simply commodities to be exploited, but that is not what society is all about. Having a common family holiday like Christmas allows families to get together regardless of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It is not only an efficiency standpoint for the employer, it is about the employees as well. Yes, you can take the attitude that employees are simply commodities to be exploited, but that is not what society is all about. Having a common family holiday like Christmas allows families to get together regardless of religion.

And if the family members had freedom to choose, they could choose to coordinate holidays with other family members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

And if the family members had freedom to choose, they could choose to coordinate holidays with other family members.

So you are saying that employers must respect the vacation wishes of their employees, without exception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, society en mass taking the same holidays off at the same time has a lot of negatives. Primarily you have issues of congestion, limited hotel space, limited restaurants, limited resorts, etc. If the burden of holidays was spread out more evenly throughout the year it could lead to greater economic efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

So you are saying that employers must respect the vacation wishes of their employees, without exception?

I'm saying that society should have more choice. If someone doesn't like the employment conditions of an employer, find another employer. Also, rather than having 7 mandatory holidays, it might be better to have 7 extra holidays that you can move around.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Canadian schools stilled expected students to stand for the Canuckian national anthem. I thought it was replaced by Kumbaya long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to a hockey game last night (OHL). When the moment came to stand up for the national anthem, I turned to my son and said "What shall we sing?" What are the lyrics? It is not the first time facing this dilemma however, given the number of versions both official and unofficial (the bilingual one...). Surprisingly and with great forethought the organizers opted for the French version, which of course nobody in the arena could sing along to anyway...

It is interesting to note that the French version has not undergone any revisions since it was written, and its translation is very different from the English, including references to the cross, and smiting our enemies with a sword. Another significant problem is that the French language is built upon words that are themselves "masculine" or "feminine", and so it cannot escape gender bias, fundamentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 5:46 PM, Ginsy said:

 "in all thy sons command" is now "in all of us command." I, for one, am excited. Thoughts? 

I don't know what is exciting about changing the national anthem.  It is not something that should be changed especially to satisfy #metoo or women's lib.

There is nothing wrong with "in all thy sons command" because the word sons as used here refers to both genders.  You will find in English grammar a male pronoun can be used to refer to both genders.  This is the case in the King James Bible (1611) otherwise known as the Authorized Version.  This Bible is the greatest work in English grammar ever completed.   It was used throughout the British empire and for the past 400 years has sold more copies than any other book in history.   The private member's bill to change this word came from someone whose mother tongue was not even English.  The Canadian people were not consulted, but has been imposed by a handful of elites at the top, led by a feminist extraordinaire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't know what is exciting about changing the national anthem.  It is not something that should be changed especially to satisfy #metoo or women's lib.

There is nothing wrong with "in all thy sons command" because the word sons as used here refers to both genders.  You will find in English grammar a male pronoun can be used to refer to both genders.  This is the case in the King James Bible (1611) otherwise known as the Authorized Version.  This Bible is the greatest work in English grammar ever completed.   It was used throughout the British empire and for the past 400 years has sold more copies than any other book in history.   The private member's bill to change this word came from someone whose mother tongue was not even English.  The Canadian people were not consulted, but has been imposed by a handful of elites at the top, led by a feminist extraordinaire.

If it is not something that should be changed then the word "sons" should not be in there at all.  It was changed to include that word a century or so ago.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 7:13 PM, OftenWrong said:

Not sure but I think the phrase "In all of us command" is grammatically incorrect? Seems I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I realize that I speak with a voice from the previous millennium and that good grammar is bad form nowadays. Nevertheless, can anyone explain to me the grammatical structure of “in all of us command”? How can an objective pronoun (us) take the place of a possessive noun (sons’)?

Transfer this construction to a simple sentence: “Let’s send all of us money to Panama to avoid most of us taxes.” Or, “Let’s eat all of us candy before the rest come.” Has anyone ever spoken like this?

Altering the national anthem

That's the part that bugs me. It is grammatically incorrect.  Otherwise, changing the anthem is a waste of time and energy.  What is the real benefit for the change? Is it just to try and make people feel inclusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

That's the part that bugs me. It is grammatically incorrect.  

I was thinking so too.

Now I see the line was "in all thy sons command" NOT "all thy sons' command".  The former phrase means that instead of saying "sons COMMAND" with command as a verb, we're saying "we COMMAND".  Or rather, love inside of us... commands.... er... command.  Love commands... no, that's not right.  In all of OUR command.  No...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×