Canadian, American religious divide

[msj]

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.

Once again, why is this a big deal?

I mean, I agree that I don't like the discrimination but what effect does this have on Canada in 2012?

Why should we care who is Queen and who will become King and all that nonsense?

It's not very meaningful when our Head of State is just a figurehead.

[August1991]

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.

According to monarchists such as bambino, we can only have a Protestant head of state. Now, AW, you understand some of teh motivating factors of Canadian politics.

Canada is a Roman Catholic country with the portrait of a Protestant - only a Protestant - on its money.

Fortunately, most Canadians realize that the British Queen/monarch is not really Canada's head of state.

Politically the Queen is meaningless to me.

(At least, until Stephen Harper came along and put her picture everywhere.)

AW, if you are interested in Canada, note this surprising recent quote:

It used to be that if you were Catholic, French-Canadian or an immigrant, you voted Liberal.

Lawrence Martin

I was surprised to see Martin refer to religion. In Canada, it's usually a taboo subject - unless people like Steyn yap on about, uh, Mohamedans.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

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?

Americans are tight-assed Lutheran protestants. Canadians are comfortable in their skin Catholics.

I generalise.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Canada is not a democracy. The Head of State is not open to anyone; it is not a democractic process that encourages everyone's participation. The Royal Family's break with the Catholic Church is a moot point, but in oversimplified terms it ensures that the monarch is Supreme, rather than having to answer to the Pope on particular issues.

Edited November 23, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Americans are tight-assed Lutheran protestants. Canadians are comfortable in their skin Catholics.

I generalise.

Canada doesn't have the history of Purtanism that they have in the United States. As you say, that's a generalisation, since much of Canada was settled by Americans at various points in our history.

[Shwa]

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?

You want to know the difference?? I'll tell you the difference! Almond Joy. There. I said it.

While we may be mostly RC comfortable in our skins, as is sometimes generalized, you tight-assed Lutherans have Almond Joy. All we get is friggin "Bounty." Now, I'll grant that Bounty and Mounds are similar, and rather equal, but we don't have the one with the damned almond on top. We used to, but now it's gone.

And that is what the entire religious divide comes down to, the damned almond on top. I am not talking some generic liturgical chocolate covered almonds, or those flat, austere milk chocolate bars laced almond chunks, with I am talking a simple chocolate covered bar of delicious coconut with an almond on top. It does give joy.

And Canadians are rather joyless at times. So our religion is thus.

Almond Joy. Don't underestimate it's power.

(Sure we have Big Turk, Coffee Crisp and Smarties, but none of these have almonds. Or coconut. You know what I mean.)

[August1991]

Canada doesn't have the history of Purtanism that they have in the United States. As you say, that's a generalisation, since much of Canada was settled by Americans at various points in our history.

I agree that Canada does not have the same history of puritanism as the US - but you are wrong to say that Canada was settled by Americans.

Canada, at its 18th/19th century origins, was a curious mix of French and Irish Catholics, with Loyalist Americans. The Catholic/Orthodox central Europeans then arrived - and the Catholics had children.

Most Catholics felt inferior, victims, even the Scottish Catholics - Trudeau's mother for example. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the Prussian Georgian British made Canada a New World refuge for Roman Catholics.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

You want to know the difference?? I'll tell you the difference! Almond Joy. There. I said it.

Shwa, I am so happy to live in such a world now.

Now, when people speak of a "mixed marriage" in Montreal, they mean language. Religious differences usually mean nothing.

----

Nevertheless, we still have a perspective on life.

[cybercoma]

I agree that Canada does not have the same history of puritanism as the US - but you are wrong to say that Canada was settled by Americans.

Canada, at its 18th/19th century origins, was a curious mix of French and Irish Catholics, with Loyalist Americans. The Catholic/Orthodox central Europeans then arrived - and the Catholics had children.

Most Catholics felt inferior, victims, even the Scottish Catholics - Trudeau's mother for example. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the Prussian Georgian British made Canada a New World refuge for Roman Catholics.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting it was exclusively settled by Americans, but Loyalists, Black Refugees (and Loyalists), merchants and Western farmers all came from America at different periods. There's easily a minority American "spirit" in our country. In fact, some political scientists have argued that Western populism is an extension of American settlers bringing their politics with them.

[August1991]

Canada doesn't have the history of Purtanism that they have in the United States.

We never had Prohibition but we have recently become more politically correct.

Erstwhile Catholics seem to have adopted the State as the new Church. Whenever I listen to Michael Enright or read Jean-François Lisée, I draw that conclusion. Both are ex-Roman Catholics who have adopted the State as the new Church. They are both sadly typical in their own ways of an old Canada.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[jbg]

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?

The countries are extremely differnt. Similar to the differences between Israel and Gaza or India and Pakistan. Canada is not America's hat.

[jbg]

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

You have a profound lack of understanding of the country on whose Board you're a guest. And you don't even try to learn.

[Michael Hardner]

Now, when people speak of a "mixed marriage" in Montreal, they mean language. Religious differences usually mean nothing.

This tells me that Montreal is about 40 years behind Toronto in social progress. At least Toronto is ahead in something. I have people I know there, who feel it's ok to talk about 'foreigners' in mixed company. Nobody does this where I live now, because doubtless that someone in the room is an immigrant or is in a relationship with one.

"Mixed marriage" ? It sounds like a phrase from 'All In the Family'.

[jbg]

Americans are tight-assed Lutheran protestants. Canadians are comfortable in their skin Catholics.

Thus I am not an American? I am definitely not a Lutheran. Edited November 23, 2011 by jbg

[August1991]

This tells me that Montreal is about 40 years behind Toronto in social progress.

Huh? All children in Toronto speak one language: English.

In Montreal, things are different. As Trudeau said, some would make Montreal the Danzig of the New World. Or maybe, its Alexandria.

I frankly think that it's Montréal. And I hope that Canadians are proud to be so civilized to have such a place in their country - if not their continent. (Like a free city, it's also a place to go.)

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Huh? All children in Toronto speak one language: English.

When was the last time you were in Toronto ? 1975 ?

I saw two typical looking Canadian kids on the subway a few years back and they had skateboards. I was a skateboarder in my youth, so I moved near them so I could hear what they might be saying about skateboarding.

They were speaking Russian.

In Montreal, things are different. As Trudeau said, some would make Montreal the Danzig of the New World. Or maybe, its Alexandria.

Ok... I hate to break this to you but maybe Trudeau's view on things may not be so ... current ?

I frankly think that it's Montréal. And I hope that Canadians are proud to be so civilized to have such a place in their country - if not their continent. (Like a free city, it's also a place to go.)

And yet it's probably the most socialist city in North America, and you don't seem to like socialism very much. Montreal is a foreign city to most Canadians, but not because of the foreigners there.

[Smallc]

I don't really agree that Montreal is foreign to most Canadians. Quebec City...now that's a different story.

[g_bambino]

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.

In a constitutional monarchy like Canada, that's not actually true. Anyone can become Canada's monarch, by convincing either the federal parliament or all eleven parliaments (depending on one's interpretation of S.41(a) to amend the constitution and make it so. Or, alternately, parliament opts to ask and make someone else sovereign (see William, Prince of Orange).

Canada is not a democracy. The Head of State is not open to anyone; it is not a democractic process that encourages everyone's participation.

You misunderstand both constitutional monarchy and democracy; perhaps this is why you've vacillated from saying Canada is a republic in all but name to now claiming Canada is simply not a democracy, being instead some 7th century absolute monarchy.

Constitutional monarchs are bound by long-established laws to (except for the most egregious emergencies) leave governance to elected parliaments and governments chosen by them. The existence of democracy doesn't rely on an elected head of state. In all republics, the post of president is unattainable to certain people, either by law or circumstances.

The Royal Family's break with the Catholic Church is a moot point, but in oversimplified terms it ensures that the monarch is Supreme, rather than having to answer to the Pope on particular issues.

Given the existence of Catholic monarchs in Spain and Belgium, plus a host of Catholic presidents throughout Latin America (who, in their full presidential systems, play a direct role in policy making), it doesn't seem to be much of an issue if a head of state owes religious allegiance to the head of another state. But, the matter isn't so inane as to be not at all worth considering.

[+]

Edited November 23, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Fortunately, most Canadians realize that the British Queen/monarch is not really Canada's head of state.(At least, until Stephen Harper came along and put her picture everywhere.)

What a ludicrous statement. Of course the British monarch isn't Canada's head of state; but most Canadian's don't know that fact, thinking instead that the opposite is true. And Elizabeth II is the Canadian monarch by virtue of our constitution, not how many of her portraits adorn public walls. Such gross misconceptions about the history and modern civics of one's own country (and your odd idea of how someone comes to be head of state) are pretty unfortunate.

[Guest American Woman]

Americans are tight-assed Lutheran protestants. Canadians are comfortable in their skin Catholics.

There are actually slightly more Methodists than Lutherans, but Catholicism is by far the largest denomination of Christianity in the United States. There are 60 million more Catholics than there are Lutherans and at least as many Methodists as Lutherans, so without even getting into your opinion of American "tight-assed Lutherans," it's pretty inaccurate to define a nation by such a small percentage of the population. Furthermore, not being "comfortable in their skin" hasn't really been a big problem among the American population.

[cybercoma]

In a constitutional monarchy like Canada, that's not actually true. Anyone can become Canada's monarch, by convincing either the federal parliament or all eleven parliaments (depending on one's interpretation of S.41(a) to amend the constitution and make it so. Or, alternately, parliament opts to ask and make someone else sovereign (see William, Prince of Orange).

Hell, anything is possible with a Constitutional amendment. As it stands, our Head of State is determined by lineage not an election where anyone can throw their hat in the ring. It's not a democratic process in that sense.

You misunderstand both constitutional monarchy and democracy; perhaps this is why you've vacillated from saying Canada is a republic in all but name to now claiming Canada is simply not a democracy, being instead some 7th century absolute monarchy.

I didn't say Canada is not a democracy. We're talking specifically about our Head of State. That most certainly is not a democratic process. When's the last time you voted for the Queen of Canada?

Constitutional monarchs are bound by long-established laws to (except for the most egregious emergencies) leave governance to elected parliaments and governments chosen by them. The existence of democracy doesn't rely on an elected head of state. In all republics, the post of president is unattainable to certain people, either by law or circumstances.

This has nothing to do with the what we were talking about. Our Head of State is not democratically elected.

Given the existence of Catholic monarchs in Spain and Belgium, plus a host of Catholic presidents throughout Latin America (who, in their full presidential systems, play a direct role in policy making), it doesn't seem to be much of an issue if a head of state owes religious allegiance to the head of another state. But, the matter isn't so inane as to be not at all worth considering.

[+]

Even if Catholics were allowed to be the Head of State, it's still not open to anyone other than the descendents of the current monarch.

[Guest American Woman]

In a constitutional monarchy like Canada, that's not actually true. Anyone can become Canada's monarch, by convincing either the federal parliament or all eleven parliaments (depending on one's interpretation of S.41(a) to amend the constitution and make it so. Or, alternately, parliament opts to ask and make someone else sovereign (see William, Prince of Orange).

So in other words, the sky's the limit, eh? Anyone can become Canada's monarch - if there's an amendment to the Constitution.

Good grief. One could apply that 'argument' to anything and everything.

As it stands, no Canadian citizen can ever aspire to be head of state of [y]our own country and the Head of State cannot be Catholic or married to a Catholic. It's amazing to me how many Canadians here defend that and make excuses for it - while claiming religion means little in Canada. That is pretty major - excluding people from being Head of State and who they can marry based on their religion. It's called discrimination.

[Smallc]

And yet, it's still true that religion plays less of a role in Canada - indeed in almost every Western country, than it does in the United States. I know, I know, you're trying to make it seem like everyone else is wrong. The reality is though, you can't.

[jbg]

And yet, it's still true that religion plays less of a role in Canada - indeed in almost every Western country, than it does in the United States. I know, I know, you're trying to make it seem like everyone else is wrong. The reality is though, you can't.

The U.S. is officially totally secular. In practice it's the most religious non-theocracy in the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. is officially totally secular. In practice it's the most religious non-theocracy in the world.

Just as it was designed: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

America has been a wild success partially because of its attraction to many faiths and freedom to practice religion, not exclusions or worshipping at the alter of atheism. As remarked before, there are more mosques in NY than in all of Canada.