The British Royalty: How come this never seems to come up in Federal e

[Dave_ON]

Yes...Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota)

http://ellison.house.gov/

So it seems, however I noticed a complete lack of the mention that he was Muslim on his official biography page on the site you linked. I did find a wiki article that mentions it, and the fact that he is the first and only Muslim currently in US congress. I suppose this begs the question, why was it such a big deal when the rumour was being spread that Obama was a Muslim...

[Wilber]

Notwithstanding our non Catholic head of state, religion is much less a factor in Canadian politics than in the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

So it seems, however I noticed a complete lack of the mention that he was Muslim on his official biography page on the site you linked. I did find a wiki article that mentions it, and the fact that he is the first and only Muslim currently in US congress. I suppose this begs the question, why was it such a big deal when the rumour was being spread that Obama was a Muslim...

Whoa....don't read to much into this...I only wanted to answer your direct question for a Muslim being elected to US federal office. Clearly it is possible, and has happened. As for why his government hosted site doesn't mention his religion, I suspect many others don't as well. Locally in his district, his faith received plenty of attention, to both good and bad effect.

Edited May 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Notwithstanding our non Catholic head of state, religion is much less a factor in Canadian politics than in the US.

I used to believe this, but there was mention of MP May's Anglican office and activities in the last campaign. Some mention of PM Harper's faith before that. It may be less, but not much less.

[Dave_ON]

I used to believe this, but there was mention of MP May's Anglican office and activities in the last campaign. Some mention of PM Harper's faith before that. It may be less, but not much less.

Not to mention the lamely named "wafegate".

[guyser]

Whoa....don't read to much into this...I only wanted to answer your direct question for a Muslim being elected to US federal office.

I recall he (Ellison)was going to use the Koran to be sworn in.....did he follow through?

[bush_cheney2004]

I recall he (Ellison)was going to use the Koran to be sworn in.....did he follow through?

Yes....Representative Ellison was sworn into office with Thomas Jefferson's Qu'ran.

[Wilber]

I used to believe this, but there was mention of MP May's Anglican office and activities in the last campaign. Some mention of PM Harper's faith before that. It may be less, but not much less.

There's the difference. In Canada being seen as too Christian can have the same reprocutions as being seen as not Christian enough in the US.

[Guest American Woman]

There's the difference. In Canada being seen as too Christian can have the same reprocutions as being seen as not Christian enough in the US.

Yet you have a head of state representing the Anglican Church; a head of state exclusive of Catholicism out of fear of one having loyalty to the Vatican - ie: the head of the Catholic church - over loyalty to the church of England. As you claim to be a nation free of religion. Nothing contradictory there. Not at all.

[RNG]

Yet you have a head of state representing the Anglican Church; a head of state exclusive of Catholicism out of fear of one having loyalty to the Vatican - ie: the head of the Catholic church - over loyalty to the church of England. As you claim to be a nation free of religion. Nothing contradictory there. Not at all.

A significant difference as I see it though, is that religion of candidates in Canada isn't that important, and in fact, as was said could be a hindrance. In the US, the religious stance of candidates is of way more significance. That Henry VIII or whoever wanted to bang other broads so schism-ed with the Catholic church doesn't really have much impact on our lives or political thoughts.

Whereas it appears to me from the news media I frequent, and from the tone of a US political forum I frequent is that being a fundie will help you if you are a Rep, and hurt you if you are a Dem. In a big way.

[Guest American Woman]

A significant difference as I see it though, is that religion of candidates in Canada isn't that important, and in fact, as was said could be a hindrance. In the US, the religious stance of candidates is of way more significance.

Really? What proof do you offer? Surely not Harper. Furthermore, religion plays a very significant factor, and is quite important, regarding your head of state.

That Henry VIII or whoever wanted to bang other broads so schism-ed with the Catholic church doesn't really have much impact on our lives or political thoughts.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that your head of state can't be a catholic or married to a catholic.

Whereas it appears to me from the news media I frequent, and from the tone of a US political forum I frequent is that being a fundie will help you if you are a Rep, and hurt you if you are a Dem. In a big way.

Perhaps you should be more selective as to the news media and US political forums you frequent. When was the last time a "fundie" was elected POTUS? Which candidates have been hurt by not being a "fundie?"

Edited May 24, 2011 by American Woman

[RNG]

Perhaps you should be more selective as to the news media and US political forums you frequent. When was the last time a "fundie" was elected POTUS? Which candidates have been hurt by not being a "fundie?"

Doesn't Shrub Jr. ring a bell?

And our "head of state", the Queen or King, are total figureheads. So that is a very insignificant fact.

I'm for us retaining the monarchy, but as a symbol. Ronald McDonald or the Burger King would do as well.

[Guest American Woman]

Doesn't Shrub Jr. ring a bell?

Yeah, he's a prime example of a "fundie."

And our "head of state", the Queen or King, are total figureheads. So that is a very insignificant fact.

Not everyone would consider your head of state to be insignificant. However, it's good to know that discrimination doesn't matter as long as long as it's not considered important. By someone.

I'm for us retaining the monarchy, but as a symbol. Ronald McDonald or the Burger King would do as well.

We don't have to support the lifestyle of Ronald McDonald or Burger King if we choose not to. New citizens don't have to pledge loyalty to them. We can touch them if we so choose because we aren't in a class beneath them. Are you getting the difference yet? But if you would be pleased to have Ronald McDonald as your head of state, that says a lot about you - and I'm afraid it would say a lot about your state, too. Know what I mean?

[Smallc]

Yet you have a head of state representing the Anglican Church;

The office of Queen of Canada has no connection to the Church of England, as has already been stated more than once. In Canada, the Crown acts in defence of the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

[RNG]

Yeah, he's a prime example of a "fundie."

We don't have to support the lifestyle of Ronald McDonald or Burger King if we choose not to. New citizens don't have to pledge loyalty to them. We can touch them if we so choose because we aren't in a class beneath them. Are you getting the difference yet? But if you would be pleased to have Ronald McDonald as your head of state, that says a lot about you - and I'm afraid it would say a lot about your state, too. Know what I mean?

The point I was trying to make, and not just for debating points as you seem to be going for, is that a non-political head of state is worth more to me than it costs me. Your system, as I have said before has the flaw that criticizing your president could be equated to criticizing your country. I can bad-mouth Harper, but he is just my PM, he doesn't represent Canada, like the Queen does.

[g_bambino]

The office of Queen of Canada has no connection to the Church of England, as has already been stated more than once.

Not within her sovereignty over Canada, no. However, since the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom are the same person, the Queen of the United Kingdom is the head of the Anglican Church, some of Canada's constitution is law inherited from the UK, and Canada and the UK, as well as 15 other countries, have voluntarily agreed to have parallel lines of succession, there is a connection.

If there was strong opposition in Canada to the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement, and the UK refused to separate their sovereign from the Church of England, we'd have little other choice but to either become a republic or make our line of succession different to that of the UK. I'd prefer the latter.

[Sandy MacNab]

Not within her sovereignty over Canada, no. However, since the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom are the same person, the Queen of the United Kingdom is the head of the Anglican Church, some of Canada's constitution is law inherited from the UK, and Canada and the UK, as well as 15 other countries, have voluntarily agreed to have parallel lines of succession, there is a connection.

If there was strong opposition in Canada to the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement, and the UK refused to separate their sovereign from the Church of England, we'd have little other choice but to either become a republic or make our line of succession different to that of the UK. I'd prefer the latter.

I'm an agnostic. I don't give a crap about the religious aspect of the Monarchy. The Crown is still an impressive symbol for our head of state - I wouldn't change a thing.

[Guest American Woman]

The office of Queen of Canada has no connection to the Church of England, as has already been stated more than once. In Canada, the Crown acts in defence of the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

The Queen of Canada IS the head of the Church of England. They are one and the same, and it's not Canada who chooses who that one person is. It's the reigning monarchy of Britain and that means it cannot be a Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic. And as I pointed out, new Canadian citizens must not only declare loyalty to the Queen, but to her descendants. The idea that someone who excludes Catholics from the position - who excludes anyone marrying a Catholic from the position - and is the head of the state church - can act in defense of freedom of religion and separation of church and state is totally contradictory. That you can't see that, or refuse to see it, is quite difficult to understand.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[Sandy MacNab]

The Queen of Canada IS the head of the Church of England. They are one and the same, and it's not Canada who chooses who that one person is. It's the reigning monarchy of Britain and that means it cannot be a Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic. And as I pointed out, new Canadian citizens must not only declare loyalty to the Queen, but to her descendants. The idea that someone who excludes Catholics from the position - who excludes anyone marrying a Catholic from the position - and is the head of the state church - can act in defense of freedom of religion and separation of church and state is totally contradictory. That you can't see that, or refuse to see it, is quite difficult to understand.

Too bad about new Canadians. If they didn't know about the loyalty issue before they arrived and now find it something they can't accept, they are quite free to leave. The same holds for new Americans who find that the babe-in-arms when they arrived is barred from becoming POTUS.

[Wilber]

The Queen of Canada IS the head of the Church of England. They are one and the same, and it's not Canada who chooses who that one person is. It's the reigning monarchy of Britain and that means it cannot be a Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic. And as I pointed out, new Canadian citizens must not only declare loyalty to the Queen, but to her descendants. The idea that someone who excludes Catholics from the position - who excludes anyone marrying a Catholic from the position - and is the head of the state church - can act in defense of freedom of religion and separation of church and state is totally contradictory. That you can't see that, or refuse to see it, is quite difficult to understand.

The only one being discriminated against in our system is the Monarch. Any other citizen is free to practice the religion of their choice and can occupy any official position in our system but the Monarch. The Monarch's representative can be Catholic, as many have been. In fact, we have had far more Catholic Prime Ministers than you have had Catholic Presidents. The Monarch is stuck with being the Monarch and Church of England. The Monarch gets no choice. It was Parliament that determined the Monarch not be Catholic, not the other way around. The reasons for doing so were sound, a matter of national survival at the time. Those reasons are no longer so important and there is no reason to think the Monarch's position as head of the Church of England won't someday change.

I daresay that for all practical purposes, Canada and the UK have been more successful in separating the state and religion than you have, regardless of the Monarch's position as head of the Church of England.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

....The Monarch is stuck with being the Monarch and Church of England. The Monarch gets no choice.....

The monarch is not stuck, as the position can be abdicated as was the case in 1936.

[Wilber]

I'm an agnostic. I don't give a crap about the religious aspect of the Monarchy. The Crown is still an impressive symbol for our head of state - I wouldn't change a thing.

X2. I think it is damned impressive.

[RNG]

X2. I think it is damned impressive.

And see my opinion above.

[Wilber]

The monarch is not stuck, as the position can be abdicated as was the case in 1936.

As AW keeps saying, there are conditions of employment. You make your conditions. We make ours.

[Smallc]

Not within her sovereignty over Canada, no.

That's all we're really concerned about here though. Canada is not an Anglican nation, no matter what the Queens Standing in the UK.