Canadian, American religious divide

[Guest American Woman]

I apologize. MSJ quoted it here (link). I was a bit exhausted and knew Chretien's "blame the victim" interview occurred but was too lazy to dig it up. To be exact this is what was said, and we've had this discussion, with you on my side (link) before. And I give you enough credit to doubt you've changed your mind.

I knew which interview you were referring to, but it still doesn't answer my questions. It's not clear if your reference to his "smug satisfaction" and "happiness" is in regards to his explanation as to why it happened or that it happened - and I'm still wondering who it is you claim would jump in with him in "smug satisfaction" and "happiness."

So no, I wasn't "on your side" regarding this as it's not even clear to me what you are saying. Even in the thread you refer to, my issues don't seem to be with Chretien, but with Black Dog and bush_cheney2004; but really, in spite of issues we've had, I now see bc's point in the context of where he is coming from. I still see our country the same, but I see that it's not by any means just our country - and the hypocrisy also very much lies with those who criticize us while giving a pass to their own countries - as they reap the benefits.

So in that respect, I guess I do see it differently - I see the whole picture now. I used to believe that what came across as "anti-American" but was explained as "anti-Bush" really was/is "anti-American" - and always will be, regardless of who our POTUS is, regardless of what we do; and there will always be those jumping all over what the U.S. does as they give a pass and/or make excuses for - or outright ignore - the same behavior in their own country.

At any rate, as it appears as if you aren't going to specifically address my questions, so be it. Just wanted to explain where I am coming from.

[jbg]

At any rate, as it appears as if you aren't going to specifically address my questions, so be it. Just wanted to explain where I am coming from.

The "smug satisfaction" was almost like "I told you so". At least my view.

[Guest American Woman]

The "smug satisfaction" was almost like "I told you so". At least my view.

Thank you for your clarification.

I don't agree with him, I don't think the hijackers/al Qaeda care about the poor at all (I've seen no proof of this), but he's not just referring to the U.S. in his observations, but rather the whole western world. He speaks of how 9-11 made him reflect on some of the things he mentioned, so I don't get "smugness" or "happiness" out of it; more reflection and introspection. He did get a lot of flack for his comments, and in response, he clearly said that he didn't blame the U.S. for the attacks, so I'll give him that.

"Indeed, the forceful action Canada has taken, shoulder to shoulder with the United States, to track down and bring to justice those behind the attacks is unequivocal proof of the views of the prime minister, the government and the people of Canada as to who is responsible for Sept. 11" .... link

And this is true. He, as the PM of Canada, was right there in solidarity with us on 9-11. We couldn't have asked for a better neighbor than Canada that day.

Now I'll ask just one more time before dropping it, more directly this time, who were you saying you could see joining right in with Chretien? Obama?

Edited November 20, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

You mean like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler?

Stalin and Hitler also had moustaches.

[Shwa]

Yep, here's the divide right here: (warning, severe LOL ahead!)

Is Canada Hoarding America’s Natural Resources?

Are our politicians brave enough to embrace such a vision? Maybe the adoption of Canada by the United States needs to come from a Christian consensus. We should see the moral imperative at play here and voice our love, our desire to rescue these forlorn people and their bountiful land. There will be some Canadians who rebel against such passion, but time will win them over to the newfound glory as a province of the world’s greatest nation, fueling our rugged strength and moral fiber as we rush forward into this bright, new millennium. Indeed, our ultimate destiny is far greater than the borders of this simple continent and we must, with the Lord’s blessing, be ready.

This was after the author suggested that our boreal forests and tundra would be an ideal setting for all those extra Mexicans that keep flooding into the US.

Hey, is that Jesus in Washington or some white hippy Occupier?

[jbg]

Now I'll ask just one more time before dropping it, more directly this time, who were you saying you could see joining right in with Chretien? Obama?

I'm not sure quite what you mean. I feel Chretien definitely did the right thing in 2001 when he directed the opening of Canada's airports to Americans, and indeed encouraged Canadians to open their homes. It was what he said after that bothers me.

As for Obama I think he would join right in with Chretien's comments a year later. Unfortunately and sadly.

[kimmy]

You mean like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler?

Whatever Hitler was, he wasn't an atheist.

-k

[SF/PF]

Whatever Hitler was, he wasn't an atheist.

-k

He self identified as a Christian.

Both the Catholic and Lutheran churches viewed him as Christian.

His beliefs were not wildly inconsistent with those of Martin Luther.

Of course, it goes without saying that none of this reflects on modern Christians that do not identify with his beliefs. Unfortunatly, the lie about Hitler being an atheist is not put forth so innocently.

ed: speiling!

Edited November 21, 2011 by SF/PF

[Shakeyhands]

Yep, here's the divide right here: (warning, severe LOL ahead!)

Is Canada Hoarding America’s Natural Resources?

Ummmm... this is satire right?

[Shwa]

Ummmm... this is satire right?

Does this sound like satire to you?

Mission

Dear friends, we are living in cruel days. Evil hours. Yes, these are certainly dark times and it’s time for the moral majority to once again step forward to bring freedom and liberty to the world.

Our culture was built on the guiding principles of conservatism and Christianity, from which all morality is born. As such American heritage was meant to be passed on from generation to generation, ensuring that our principles…our values…were never compromised.

But alas, the Left Wing Conspiracy and Liberal Agenda is spreading like a plague not only through our fine society, but through lesser cultures as well. Their sinful antics and attempt to pass off their wanton carnal desires into mainstream culture is destroying society and mankind.

That’s where we come in. Together, in this community, you and your Moral Leaders will combat the evil liberals of this world and once again ensure that a bit of freedom and righteousness once again permeates every country, and let those who don’t abide by our teachings know the eternal pit of hellfire shall be awaiting!

Sincerely,

Jack Gould

Youth Pastor/Motivational Speaker

Langley CC

It would have been completely absurd had I not heard it before, some of the sentiment expressed right here on our beloved MLW.

However, just in case, I am looking into purchasing 8k acres near Timmins for some Mexican relocation programs.

[The_Squid]

I'm not sure quite what you mean. I feel Chretien definitely did the right thing in 2001 when he directed the opening of Canada's airports to Americans, and indeed encouraged Canadians to open their homes. It was what he said after that bothers me.

As for Obama I think he would join right in with Chretien's comments a year later. Unfortunately and sadly.

You are reading your own feelings for Chretien in to his comments. There was no smugness nor happiness about 9/11 in his comments whatsoever. It is simply assinine to even suggest it.

Your comment about Obama feeling the same way certainly shows your strange bias in spades.

You dislike them, therefore they must be anti-American. Take the tinfoil off your head.... there's no conspiracy of happiness from liberal leaders over 9/11.

Edited November 21, 2011 by The_Squid

[jbg]

You are reading your own feelings for Chretien in to his comments. There was no smugness nor happiness about 9/11 in his comments whatsoever. It is simply assinine to even suggest it.

Your comment about Obama feeling the same way certainly shows your strange bias in spades.[/qutoe]Bias? Chretien makes a statement that 9/11 happened because the West got too rich? And Obama goes to Egypt early in his administration and trumpets the U.S.'s apology to the Muslim world and praises its overwhelming role in forming America?

You dislike them, therefore they must be anti-American. Take the tinfoil off your head.... there's no conspiracy of happiness from liberal leaders over 9/11.

I where no tinfoil hat. I had the dubious privilege of going to an Ivy League university (graduated in 1979) where we were carefully taught, even then, that the West was generating ill-will throughout the world. They never bothered to teach that the countries involved were led by dictators who themselved lived high on the hog and needed to prevent anger from being directed at them. This is typical leftist mentality.

[olp1fan]

I feel Chretien definitely did the right thing in 2001 when he directed the opening of Canada's airports to Americans

People don't see the risk he took by allowing American planes to land in Canada, he put Canadians at risk by allowing possible high jacked planes in Canadian airspace ...in fact there was even a situation where he nearly gave the orders to shoot down a plane full of South Koreans

but didn't and made the right choice because the panic button or whatever they call it was accidently pushed..but you don't hear anyone talk about that, instead people insult the man

what does Canada get in return? U.S politicians and citizens still insist the 9.11 hijackers came from Canada and not Europe

Edited November 21, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure quite what you mean. I feel Chretien definitely did the right thing in 2001 when he directed the opening of Canada's airports to Americans, and indeed encouraged Canadians to open their homes. It was what he said after that bothers me.

What about what he said after that, when he emphatically said that he was not saying that he blamed the U.S. for 9-11? Why hasn't that clarified his stance in that regard?

As for Obama I think he would join right in with Chretien's comments a year later. Unfortunately and sadly.

I have no idea where this is coming from; what you are basing it on. As far as I can see, you pulled it right out of your head.

[August1991]

Any comments?

Canada is largely a Roman Catholic country. Roman Catholics (practising or by heritage) represent the largest religious denomination or almost 45% of all Canadians. OTOH, the US is largely a Protestant country. Protestants (practising or by heritage) represent about 50% of the US population.

The US has had only one Roman Catholic president. We have had many federal PMs. Indeed, Harper is Canada's first Protestant federal PM since Pearson. (I'll exclude Kim Campbell.) Martin, Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Clark, Chretien were all Roman Catholic.

-----

This obvious but little mentioned fact colours and explains so many differences between the US and Canada.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

Canada is largely a Roman Catholic country. Roman Catholics (practising or by heritage) represent the largest religious denomination or almost 45% of all Canadians.

Yet Canada's Head of State cannot be a Catholic or even married to a Catholic - as quite a few Canadians here make claims as to the unimportance of religion in Canada, claiming that it has little to no place in Canadian politics.

This obvious but little mentioned fact colours and explains so many differences between the US and Canada.

In practice, I don't think there is a lot of difference between the U.S. and Canada; just what differences are you speaking of?

[msj]

Yet Canada's Head of State cannot be a Catholic or even married to a Catholic - as quite a few Canadians here make claims as to the unimportance of religion in Canada, claiming that it has little to no place in Canadian politics.

I don't remember when the Queen has interfered in our domestic politics never mind whether or not such interference would have anything to do with some archaic monarchic rule.

Do you?

Hence why many Canadians don't think such a rule is all that important to us.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't remember when the Queen has interfered in our domestic politics never mind whether or not such interference would have anything to do with some archaic monarchic rule.

Do you?

Hence why many Canadians don't think such a rule is all that important to us.

The fact that you don't think such a rule is important to Canadians, that you have no problem with the exclusion of an entire group of people from being Head of State or married to the Head of State based solely on their religion, doesn't give you the High Ground that you seem to think it does.

Fact is, whether you can see it or not, religion is so important that it governs not only who can be Head of State, but who can be married to your Head of State.

[dre]

Ummmm. No. Not true at all, any more than ALL atheists have somewhat radical beliefs.

Im sorry, I guess I was just mistaken.

See... Id heard that Christians believe they are telepathically communicating with some sort of all-powerful cosmic force that can make them live forever as long as they accept this cosmic force as their master, telephatically beg for its forgiveness for thier "sins", and perform rituals where they symbolically eat his flesh...

[cybercoma]

Canada's Head of State cannot be a Catholic or even married to a Catholic

That's because Canada's Head of State is the Queen and the Royal Families have been tied to the Church of England since the English Reformation. There is no such rule for the Governor Generals of Canada, who act as the Head of State in the Queen's place. While David Johnston and Adrienne Clarkson happened to be Anglican, Michaëlle Jean, Romeo Leblanc, and Jeanne Sauvé were all Catholic and Ray Hnatyshyn was Ukrainian Orthodox. So, I'm really not sure what your point is.

[cybercoma]

that you have no problem with the exclusion of an entire group of people from being Head of State or married to the Head of State based solely on their religion, doesn't give you the High Ground that you seem to think it does.

Do you understand monarchies? People aren't excluded solely based on religion. Everyone is excluded from being the Head of State unless they're a direct descendent of the monarch.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you understand monarchies? People aren't excluded solely based on religion. Everyone is excluded from being the Head of State unless they're a direct descendent of the monarch.

Well, that sure makes things a lot more democratic and egalitarian! Yay!!

[Guest American Woman]

That's because Canada's Head of State is the Queen and the Royal Families have been tied to the Church of England since the English Reformation. There is no such rule for the Governor Generals of Canada, who act as the Head of State in the Queen's place. While David Johnston and Adrienne Clarkson happened to be Anglican, Michaëlle Jean, Romeo Leblanc, and Jeanne Sauvé were all Catholic and Ray Hnatyshyn was Ukrainian Orthodox. So, I'm really not sure what your point is.

My point is - exactly as stated. Your Head of State and the spouse of your Head of State cannot be Catholic. Religion is a major factor as to who can be - or more to the point cannot be - your Head of State or married to your Head of State. I'm not speaking of the representative of your Head of State - I'm speaking of the Head of State and their spouse. Hope that helps you understand what my clearly stated point is.

[Guest American Woman]

Do you understand monarchies? People aren't excluded solely based on religion. Everyone is excluded from being the Head of State unless they're a direct descendent of the monarch.

Even direct descendants of the monarch are excluded should they desire to convert to Catholicism or marry a Catholic. Religion plays a very important part in who can - or cannot - be your Head of State.

[msj]

The fact that you don't think such a rule is important to Canadians, that you have no problem with the exclusion of an entire group of people from being Head of State or married to the Head of State based solely on their religion, doesn't give you the High Ground that you seem to think it does.

I just don't think it's a big deal.

Politically the Queen is meaningless to me.

Sure, I understand her role etc... (not as well as smallc or gambino but well enough given that I don't care) but I just don't see how she has any real effect on the day to day politics of our country.

Her representative in Canada (the Gov. General) I would be a little more concerned about but once again, it just doesn't matter.

Do I think it's silly? Yes. Would I prefer Canada to be somekind of republic? Yes.

But Canada works pretty well despite such terrible, terrible, discrimination.

Oh, and I still don't see what high ground I'm supposedly standing on.

Fact is, whether you can see it or not, religion is so important that it governs not only who can be Head of State, but who can be married to your Head of State.

Like I said: who cares.

For our day to day lives it has no effect whatsoever on Canada's politics.

The Royals are the people over there who come and visit us once in awhile.

Edited November 23, 2011 by msj