Canadian, American religious divide

[Guest American Woman]

hey im just reading your media... cnn, foxnews, huffington post, washington post, new york times, detroit free press, boston globe

Americans have local news, Americans dig for information on the candidates regarding information they are concerned about, Americans are discussing it with other Americans, Americans are going to hear the candidates speak. Furthermore, I read those media outlets too, but not everything they put out as you don't either, so again, what one reads is colored by what one is most interested in. I have seen plenty about the economy in the media outlets you mention - much more than about religion.

But once again you prove my point. Americans aren't "just reading the media" that you are reading, much less just reading the information that you choose to read. They are doing much more.

Furthermore, what the media focuses on the most at any given point in time is not necessarily what's most important to Americans; in fact, it likely rarely is. Do you think otherwise? Once. Again. Look at what Americans say is important.

Edited November 30, 2011 by American Woman

[olp1fan]

Furthermore, what the media focuses on the most at any given point in time is not necessarily what's most important to Americans; in fact, it likely rarely is. Do you think otherwise? Once. Again. Look at what Americans say is important.

Sure it is important...your media doesn't really report things that happens in other countries, its mostly fixated on American happenings

Edited November 30, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest American Woman]

Furthermore, what the media focuses on the most at any given point in time is not necessarily what's most important to Americans; in fact, it likely rarely is. Do you think otherwise? Once. Again. Look at what Americans say is important.

Sure it is important...your media doesn't really report things that happens in other countries, its mostly fixated on American happenings

So you aren't actually familiar with our media; with what's reported. Explains your focused viewpoint.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure it is important...your media doesn't really report things that happens in other countries, its mostly fixated on American happenings

This is patently false, and is besides the point of what is actually important to Americans. That's how we get some rubes in Canada saying that Ron Paul is America's Obi Wan Kenobi (only hope). Do you think Greeks (or Canadians) get all the jokes when watching reruns of Gilligan's Island?

[msj]

My "Google proof" proves exactly what I wanted to prove. Apparently you totally missed my point.

There has been a lot written about Harper and religion too. Did you truly miss that point? I didn't say there was MORE written about Harper. For a country one tenth the size of the U.S., without the world wide focus that is put on the U.S., my Google search proved just what I wanted to show. That you chose to ignore what is shows and instead moved the goalposts (or perhaps truly didn't get the point I was making), doesn't change that fact.

It appears as if you are trying to prove that the higher Google numbers proves that it's more of an issue to Americans, but bush_cheney points out the fallacy of that conclusion. Furthermore, as I've said a bajillion times now, we are more open about it in the U.S.; we do talk about it more, so of course there would be more written about it. The rest of the world writes more about it too, focuses on it, putting more articles/discussion out there. The rest of the world doesn't discuss Canada's elections to the same extent, so of course there would be even more out there. That doesn't mean it's a major issue to Americans when they vote. How much is out there is not directly related to how important an issue it is to Americans.

You seem to only want to believe whatever it is that you believe.

I think using Google hits as a proof is just plain stupid.

You are unable to control for many variables (population size, sample size, interest in subject by interested parties in many countries, internet penetration in countries, etc) that make it absolutely useless as a gauge for this type of thing.

-----

I really am not sure what the argument here is.

Canadians don't seem to be as into religion as Americans based on one's perception of media coverage in both countries and based on polls that show that American's think religion is more important to their daily lives than Canadians (on average - northern US is generally quite similar to Canada whereas many other states, like Mississippi for example, are more similar to Iran, Lebanon or Zimbabwe).

It would seem while religion is not all that important to you (since you are probably one of those damn northerners!) it would be considerably more important to someone in Mississippi.

Just because religion is more or less important, on average, does not mean that one country is better than the other.

It just means that one country has more religiosity than the other. Once again, BFD.

[Guest American Woman]

You seem to only want to believe whatever it is that you believe.

Oh really? Unlike open-minded you?

I'm not even sure you understand my viewpoint; the issue that I've been responding to.

I think using Google hits as a proof is just plain stupid.

Well then, if you think so, it must be, eh?

Again. There's nothing stupid about it. It shows that there are many articles/discussions about Harper and religion also, and if it wasn't an issue, they wouldn't exist in the millions.

You are unable to control for many variables (population size, sample size, interest in subject by interested parties in many countries, internet penetration in countries, etc) that make it absolutely useless as a gauge for this type of thing.

I'm not using it to "gauge" anything - only to show that there are Canadians who are concerned about religion and political leaders too; that it's an issue with some Canadians just as it's an issue with some Americans. That it's an issue with some in both countries doesn't mean that it's a main issue in the U.S. while it's not an issue in Canada, as it's being presented.

As a side note, I find this rather humorous: Harper Dealt Major Blow, Religious Vote Leaves Party

Various influential religious groups, many of whom support the Conservative Party have sent a joint letter of outrage to the Prime Minister after he chose to sing the John Lennon song "Imagine" ....

"As Canadians of faith from coast to coast, we are more than disappointed that the PM decided to sing 'Imagine', which contains the lyrics 'Imagine there's no Heaven/It's easy if you try/No hell below us' and then later, 'And no religion too.' This is a slap in the face of the very people who have supported you in your various elections and initiatives throughout the years. We hereby regretfully withdraw our support from your candidacy for re-election."

Imagine Harper having the nerve to sing such a song!

[olp1fan]

Various influential religious groups, many of whom support the Conservative Party have sent a joint letter of outrage to the Prime Minister after he chose to sing the John Lennon song "Imagine" ....

"As Canadians of faith from coast to coast, we are more than disappointed that the PM decided to sing 'Imagine', which contains the lyrics 'Imagine there's no Heaven/It's easy if you try/No hell below us' and then later, 'And no religion too.' This is a slap in the face of the very people who have supported you in your various elections and initiatives throughout the years. We hereby regretfully withdraw our support from your candidacy for re-election."

Imagine Harper having the nerve to sing such a song!

I think he chose it because its one of the top 5 most recognizable songs in the world

[msj]

Oh really? Unlike open-minded you?

Never said I was. Once again, take you're own advice and "listen what I say."

I'm not even sure you understand my viewpoint; the issue that I've been responding to.

Yes, I'm just a stupid idiot etc etc ....

Well then, if you think so, it must be, eh?

Never said it must be.

I am giving my opinion but I forgot that when I discuss anything with you I need to end my posts with "in my opinion."

I apologize for taking for granted that merely typing my opinion is too implicit without explicitly stating that what I type is, in fact, my opinion.

Again. There's nothing stupid about it. It shows that there are many articles/discussions about Harper and religion also, and if it wasn't an issue, they wouldn't exist in the millions.

Sure it shows that.

In the context of it showing what you want it to show it is meaningless.

Of course there are millions of hits on Harper and religion.

There are hundreds of millions or more for various US politicans.

Meaningless for the reasons I have already outlined.

All of this is, of course, in my opinion.

I'm not using it to "gauge" anything - only to show that there are Canadians who are concerned about religion and political leaders too; that it's an issue with some Canadians just as it's an issue with some Americans. That it's an issue with some in both countries doesn't mean that it's a main issue in the U.S. while it's not an issue in Canada, as it's being presented.

I don't think you think you know the meaning of "gauge."

I also think, in my opinion, that you are misstating what other people are stating.

It is a relative thing and you just aren't getting that; apparently, and in my opinion.

As a side note, I find this rather humorous: Harper Dealt Major Blow, Religious Vote Leaves Party

Various influential religious groups, many of whom support the Conservative Party have sent a joint letter of outrage to the Prime Minister after he chose to sing the John Lennon song "Imagine" ....

"As Canadians of faith from coast to coast, we are more than disappointed that the PM decided to sing 'Imagine', which contains the lyrics 'Imagine there's no Heaven/It's easy if you try/No hell below us' and then later, 'And no religion too.' This is a slap in the face of the very people who have supported you in your various elections and initiatives throughout the years. We hereby regretfully withdraw our support from your candidacy for re-election."

Imagine Harper having the nerve to sing such a song!

Yes, it was quite funny at the time with the usual poltics - left wingers hated him for it and CPC supporters thought it showed his touchy feely side, the Christian Heritage Party didn't like him for singing an atheist song (the CHP get very little support in Canada).

I don't think anyone on here is going to deny that religion inserts itself into Canadian politics.

You will find much anecdata to back this up.

The question is the extent of it.

Since fewer Canadians relative to Americans think that religion is important to their daily lives one would expect that in politics religion would also play a smaller role (relatively) too.

In fact, I would go so far to say that it varies province by province and state by state and would even go down to the riding by riding or county by county level too.

But all of that is simply my opinion.

Edited November 30, 2011 by msj

[g_bambino]

The question is the extent of it.

Exactly.

[ed.: fix syntax]

Edited November 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[August1991]

Try to comprehend what I am saying - religion isn't one of the main topics. That you, a non-American, pick up on that aspect of it means nothing regarding the reality within the United States. I've gone to hear several candidates speak throughout the years - I don't recall religion even being raised, much less "one of the main topics." It seems to be what Canadians are focused on - doesn't mean Americans are.

AW, religion is not an issue in Canada, as it is in the US.

Confused? The colour of one's skin is not an issue in Canada, as it is in the US.

Really confused? Let me explain how I view language. (US progressives think learning a new language is a good thing... )

Quite true...American news media is produced primarily for Americans to be digested in an American context. That some Canadians choose to watch or read such things from their own perspective and biases doesn't mean their interpretation is reality. An American could/would make the same error watching the opening day rituals for Canada's parliament, complete with Black Rod's throne theatrics.

Exactly.

As Galileo noted, each of us perceives reality in our own way. It took Einstein to conclude that the speed of light is an absolute. IOW, there is something called the "truth". I prefer the term "limit" because that's what it is.

If you need a visual symbol, it's the horizon.

Edited December 2, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

AW, religion is not an issue in Canada, as it is in the US.

Confused? The colour of one's skin is not an issue in Canada, as it is in the US.

Not at all....religion has an altogether different but real impact on Canada past and present, as does skin "colour".

[g_bambino]

The colour of one's skin is not an issue in Canada, as it is in the US.

Though there are those who want to make it into one (ahem... Toronto Star...).

[GostHacked]

How do you even remember this stuff? I sure don't remember it; it hasn't made enough of an impression to stick with me - if I even knew about it to begin with. Which is exactly what I'm saying - you find this all-important for some reason, so it stands out in your mind. It's exaggerated in your mind. It's what you focus on, so it becomes bigger in your mind.

If you can't remember, then you may not have been paying attention.

Edited to add: Just for fun, I did a Google search for "Stephen Harper Christian." About 3,920,000 results (0.19 seconds)

Yeah just for fun,

Rick Perry Christian About 101,000,000 results (and I think he is a methodist)

Mitt Romney Christian About 59,200,000 results (A mormon)

Michele Bachmann Christian About 43,600,000 results (0.12 seconds)

More??

But no, no one cares about the PM's religion in Canada.

I don't like Harper But based on a google search, seems like Harper's religion does not seem to be a big factor.

[olp1fan]

Though there are those who want to make it into one (ahem... Toronto Star...).

toronto star is a conservative supporting paper isn't it?

[g_bambino]

toronto star is a conservative supporting paper isn't it?

Er, no.

[cybercoma]

Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is arguing at this moment that God wants America to drill for oil in North Dakota.

Just in case anyone is actually convinced by AW's argument that religion has little to do with US pols

Edited December 2, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

olp1fan, on 02 December 2011 - 04:32 PM, said: toronto star is a conservative supporting paper isn't it?

Er, no.

Good Lord. Even I know that the Toronto Star is considered to be liberal.

[Guest American Woman]

Not at all....religion has an altogether different but real impact on Canada past and present, as does skin "colour".

Exactly.

[msj]

Exactly.

Too often conclusions are drawn about "Canadians" based on the media and reaction to that media, outside Canada too, and 'media reaction' and 'world reaction' and 'Canadian reaction' are all very different things.

In my opinion.

[dre]

Too often conclusions are drawn about "Canadians" based on the media and reaction to that media, outside Canada too, and 'media reaction' and 'world reaction' and 'Canadian reaction' are all very different things.

In my opinion.

Actually both Canada and the US are "moderately" religious countries.

Generally the ammount of poverty and misery in a country is proportionate to the ammount of very religious people, and countries with the least ammount of religious are the happiest and enjoy the highest standard of living.

The most religious countries are countries like Egypt, Sri Lanka, Congo, Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Morroco. Im not sure if religion creates poverty and misery, or if poverty and misery causes religion. Need a separate thread for that I guess.

The least religious countries are countries like Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, Sweden. The worlds top countries in terms of human development.

Canada and the US are in the middle. About 65% of Americans say that religion is an important part of their day to day lives VS about 45% of Canadians. The worlds average is 88% however.

And it depends on where you go inside both countries. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts are less religious that Canadians on average. But Mississipi, Alabama, and Louisana are much higher. Again... Poor crappy places = more religion.

[msj]

Thanks Dre but I know that as I read the link that AW posted earlier.

I'm being sarcastic in my response here as I have taken AW's words from another, but related, thread and changed them a bit.

Perhaps I should stop being so cheeky.

[Smallc]

The least religious countries are countries like Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, Sweden. The worlds top countries in terms of human development.

Just to clarify, neither Canada or the US are near the middle on the HDI, they are both near the top - about equal with the above countries, and also, Canada is, though still being moderately religious, quite significantly less religious than the US.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually both Canada and the US are "moderately" religious countries.

Exactly - in spite of claims that the U.S. is wildly religious while religion just doesn't mean that much in Canada.

Generally the ammount of poverty and misery in a country is proportionate to the ammount of very religious people, and countries with the least ammount of religious are the happiest and enjoy the highest standard of living.

The most religious countries are countries like Egypt, Sri Lanka, Congo, Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Morroco. Im not sure if religion creates poverty and misery, or if poverty and misery causes religion. Need a separate thread for that I guess.

The least religious countries are countries like Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, Sweden. The worlds top countries in terms of human development.

I believe Italy is the most religious Christian country of the developed nations, and I don't think Italians are generally poor and/or miserable. Interesting, though, that you assume people living in countries that are not rich are "miserable." I question that. I don't assume "rich" equals happy and "poverty" equals misery.

I think people sometimes tend to equate 'less religious' with 'more educated' or 'more highly developed,' but I think it could be as simple as they tend to take their good fortune for granted - the other side of the "there are no atheists in a foxhole" mindset.

And it depends on where you go inside both countries. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts are less religious that Canadians on average. But Mississipi, Alabama, and Louisana are much higher. Again... Poor crappy places = more religion.

Yes, it does depend on where one goes inside both countries, as has already been pointed out, but I think many people in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana would be surprised to find out that they live in a "poor, crappy" state.

Appears to me as if you have a bit of stereotyping going on......

[cybercoma]

I think many people in Mississippi ... would be surprised to find out that they live in a "poor, crappy" state.

Those people would be completely oblivious then, since Mississippi is the poorest state in the country (Louisiana and Alabama are in the bottom 10 states as well).

[Smallc]

Those states are in fact poor in comparison to say, New York, or California...just as PEI or New Brunswick are poor in comparison to Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Smallc