Canadian, American religious divide

[Smallc]

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

That's true...and I'm not saying anything negative or positive about that. It just is. Now it isn't something that I favour, but Americans are free to choose their own path, and that's the best thing about America.

[Guest American Woman]

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

Is it? Or is that your perception? Just wondering where you are getting your information from.

link

[cybercoma]

That's true...and I'm not saying anything negative or positive about that. It just is. Now it isn't something that I favour, but Americans are free to choose their own path, and that's the best thing about America.

And it's pretty ironic considering there is no legal separation of church and state in Canada, as there is in the US.

[msj]

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.

Well, we have had Catholic Governors General in the past and they are acting as our head of state (smallc or gbambino can correct me on the technicalities of this).

I really don't pay any mind to the Queen or the GG.

Other than the occasional news story, and some important functions that are performed by them (which are largely ceremonial and/or symbolic) I don't see why you are making them out to be so important to Canada.

Our politics flows through our elected Parliaments/Legislatures and our unelected Senate and court systems.

That is what has meaning to us regular folks on a day to day basis and religion plays a pretty small role in the election of those members and little to no known role in the selection of the unelected Senators/Judiciary.

It's on this basis that I say that religion means little to Canadian politics.

Yes, it comes up from time to time but not to the same extent as it does in US politics.

Edited November 24, 2011 by msj

[cybercoma]

The only ones that haven't been Catholic in the last 30 years are Johnston, Clarkson (Anglican) and Ray Hnatyshyn (Orthodox). Sauve, Jean, and LeBlanc were all Catholic.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, we have had Catholic Governors General in the past and they are acting as our head of state (smallc or gbambino can correct me on the technicalities of this).

Try to understand this. I'm not referring to GG's acting as head of state - I'm referring to your head of state.

I really don't pay any mind to the Queen or the GG.

So that makes discrimination based on religion ok? Seriously? If it's something that you personally don't "pay any mind to," then discrimination is ok? I'm just trying to understand the mindset.

Other than the occasional news story, and some important functions that are performed by them (which are largely ceremonial and/or symbolic) I don't see why you are making them out to be so important to Canada.

So your Head of State isn't "important?" Is that what you're saying?

Our politics flows through our elected Parliaments/Legislatures and our unelected Senate and court systems.

That is what has meaning to us regular folks on a day to day basis and religion plays a pretty small role in the election of those members and little to no known role in the selection of the unelected Senators/Judiciary.

Again. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to your Head of State.

It's on this basis that I say that religion means little to Canadian politics.

I understand that. I understand what you're saying. You're basically sweeping whatever isn't important to you under the rug. But that doesn't change the facts. The reality.

Yes, it comes up from time to time but not to the same extent as it does in US politics.

Yeah, it does come up in in US politics. Because we speak our mind. We are more vocal as a people. We don't sweep such things under the rug. If our head of state had religious exclusions, you can bet we'd be speaking up about it - and I dare say you all would be too. If the head of state in the U.S. had the same religious exclusions that your does, I'd wager there would be a whole lot of you who would care more about it, be more critical about it, than you are in regards to your own country. Hence my comments/points.

[cybercoma]

The Governor General is the Head of State when the Queen is not here.

[Guest American Woman]

The Governor General is the Head of State when the Queen is not here.

Noooo. The Governor General represents the Head of State. The queen is the head of state.

[msj]

Try to understand this. I'm not referring to GG's acting as head of state - I'm referring to your head of state.

So you mean the GG since that is our head of state when the Queen is not here as cc as already stated.

So that makes discrimination based on religion ok? Seriously? If it's something that you personally don't "pay any mind to," then discrimination is ok? I'm just trying to understand the mindset.

No, I don't like that kind of discrimination but there is nothing I can do about it and it is hardly something that I'm going to get my knickers in a knot over.

It has no bearing on Canada.

If we became a Republic the tragic injustice of the non-Catholic Royals would still be there and Canada would still continue to function, politically, pretty much the same as we are now - that is, we would still have members being elected with religion not being as much of an issue as it is in the US elections.

So your Head of State isn't "important?" Is that what you're saying?

Again. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to your Head of State.

I understand that. I understand what you're saying. You're basically sweeping whatever isn't important to you under the rug. But that doesn't change the facts. The reality.

Our Head of State is so important that our Prime Minister gets to appoint him/her and the Queen then rubber stamps it.

Of course, when the Queen does come to town then the GG has to hide behind a bush while the Queen gets all the waves from those Protestants and raised fists from those Catholics.

Yeah, it does come up in in US politics. Because we speak our mind. We are more vocal as a people. We don't sweep such things under the rug. If our head of state had religious exclusions, you can bet we'd be speaking up about it - and I dare say you all would be too. If the head of state in the U.S. had the same religious exclusions that your does, I'd wager there would be a whole lot of you who would care more about it, be more critical about it, than you are in regards to your own country. Hence my comments/points.

This is a load of garbage.

You can pretend you know what my mind is on such matters all you want but you don't so take your own advice and "listen what I say."

[Guest American Woman]

So you mean the GG since that is our head of state when the Queen is not here as cc as already stated.

No, that's not what I mean. Once again. Your head of state is the queen - according to your constitution. The GG is her representative, whether the queen is there or not.

No, I don't like that kind of discrimination but there is nothing I can do about it and it is hardly something that I'm going to get my knickers in a knot over.

It has no bearing on Canada.

It most certainly does. But interesting to know that if there's nothing you can do about it, it's not something you are going to get your knickers in a knot over. I'll remind you of that in the future regarding other issues.

You can pretend you know what my mind is on such matters all you want but you don't so take your own advice and "listen what I say."

Ah, but actions speak louder than words.

[jbg]

Is it? Or is that your perception? Just wondering where you are getting your information from.

link

Which part of my views are you doubting?

[jbg]

And it's pretty ironic considering there is no legal separation of church and state in Canada, as there is in the US.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution uses the phrase "separation of church and state". The First Amendment bars both the government "establishment" of religion and restrictions on its "free exercise".

[Guest American Woman]

Which part of my views are you doubting?

Ummm. You made two statements. Since I wouldn't be questioning your claim that the U.S. is secular, obviously the view I'm questioning is "In practice it's the most religious non-theocracy in the world."

[jbg]

Ummm. You made two statements. Since I wouldn't be questioning your claim that the U.S. is secular, obviously the view I'm questioning is "In practice it's the most religious non-theocracy in the world."

I see from link I should have added "advanced industrial".

[Guest American Woman]

I see from link I should have added "advanced industrial".

The link still doesn't support your claim.

[msj]

No, that's not what I mean. Once again. Your head of state is the queen - according to your constitution. The GG is her representative, whether the queen is there or not.

Doesn't change the point from the OP:

olp1fan: In Canada if a politician openly talks about their religion theres a backlash but in the US all they do is talk about their religions

and faith

It most certainly does. But interesting to know that if there's nothing you can do about it, it's not something you are going to get your knickers in a knot over. I'll remind you of that in the future regarding other issues.

We all chose what's important, politically, economically, socially etc...

I think it is wise not to get tied up in knots over something that I have no control over and for which makes so little difference to so few people in the world.

Ah, but actions speak louder than words.

Oh, I've been inspired to write an email about this tragic injustice.

Maybe I'll pitch a tent the next time I see Kate.

Edited November 25, 2011 by msj

[cybercoma]

Noooo. The Governor General represents the Head of State. The queen is the head of state.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Governor General acts as our Head of State in the Queen's absence. Which means Roman Catholics have acted as the Head of State for our actual Head of State who can't be Roman Catholic.

Who cares?

Your point is that Catholics are persecuted because they can't be the Head of State of Canada, but like I said earlier, everyone is persecuted because nobody can be the Head of State unless they're directly descended from the monarch.

We have in our country someone that acts as the Head of State when the monarch isn't here and that person has been Roman Catholic many, many times.

[olp1fan]

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/religion_in_canada_is_going_extinct_as_athiests_come_out_of_the_closet/2ff3e457

According to the study released last week, the number of Canadians who are not affiliated with a religious institution is predicted to rise to 61% by 2050.

[Smallc]

.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

No, it's isn't "Six of one, half a dozen of the other;" your GG is not your Head of State. Your government is a constitutional monarchy, and the monarch is your head of state. Period.

The Governor General acts as our Head of State in the Queen's absence. Which means Roman Catholics have acted as the Head of State for our actual Head of State who can't be Roman Catholic.

He/she represents the head of state - who cannot be Catholic, or married to a Catholic.

Who cares?

Whether you care or not isn't the issue. Apathy regarding religious discrimination doesn't lessen the reality. Your government practices religious discrimination. That is the reality.

Your point is that Catholics are persecuted because they can't be the Head of State of Canada,

I never once said they were "persecuted;" I said they are discriminated against - and they are; to the extent that your Head of State can't even be married to a Catholic. That is a fact, whether you personally care or not. That you are apathetic regarding religious discrimination at such a level in your government speaks of you, and it doesn't change the facts.

but like I said earlier, everyone is persecuted because nobody can be the Head of State unless they're directly descended from the monarch.

That's another issue altogether; the discrimination I am referring to, the fact that among the "directly descended from the monarch" they cannot be Catholic or married to a Catholic singles out Catholicism. That is discrimination based on religion - as you claim religion isn't important within the nation or politics or government. It's a glaring discrepancy.

We have in our country someone that acts as the Head of State when the monarch isn't here and that person has been Roman Catholic many, many times.

Try to wrap your head around the fact that the Head of State and GG are two different positions, with two different requirements. You keep trying to steer the topic to the GG, but it's NOT about the GG - who is NOT your Head of State. Your Head of State is subjected to religious discrimination; if religion is of so little importance, the exclusion, the discrimination, says differently.

You can try to down play the facts, try to keep making it about the GG, but the facts, the reality, remains unchanged.

Now here's something else to consider - as little as you and some of the others care about actual religious discrimination in your government, I, as well as many Americans, don't care about the religious beliefs of our POTUS. I couldn't care less if he/she believes in God or not. I know I care about a thousand times less about it than any number of Canadians on this board. But here's the thing - if candidates speak out about it, we know where they stand. Harper used to be more vocal until he was criticized for it - so while his beliefs haven't changed one bit, he doesn't refer to his religion as much. So what has changed, really? As I see it, Americans are much more likely to know where their POTUS stands regarding his/her religious beliefs, while Canadians are less likely to be informed as to where their PM stands. It doesn't change the reality of how either acts in their position, how they make decisions - Canadians are just less likely to be 'in the know' about it.

And I will say again - ask ten people with exactly the same beliefs how important their beliefs are to them and you will get a range of answers. Religion is personal, and will therefore be perceived differently by each person; also, the religious climate where one lives is also likely to have an effect.

Ultimately, whether or not religion means nothing in your country means very little to me, but it's the 'holier than thou' attitude regarding it - along with that often made claim of superior Canadian tolerance - that one cannot help but notice - as you all make claims as to how important religion is "to Americans/American politics." "Wildly" important, even as there is really little difference in that regard between our countries; even as your head of state is discriminated against on the basis of religion.

I have no problem with people in my country being religious and feeling that their beliefs are important to them. What I don't get is non-American's presumed superiority over their lack of belief. As I've repeatedly said, you are just the flip side of the 'intolerance' coin; you are just as smug and judgmental as those you judge, and the people I really take issue with are those criticizing people for their intolerance towards Muslims as they exhibit the same traits towards the religious in general.

[GostHacked]

No, it's isn't "Six of one, half a dozen of the other;" your GG is not your Head of State. Your government is a constitutional monarchy, and the monarch is your head of state. Period.

Man you can be a pain in the bum. Also being quite hypocritical in talking about Canada, when we should mind our own business because we are not American.

I'll pull this once for both you and BC_2004. What the hell do you know about Canada being an American? Maybe you should mind your own business or learn a thing or two.

In the end the way I see it, is the GG is a representative head of state when the Queen is not here.

I am one for kicking the Monarchy out of Canada, if it really is just symbolic and does not provide any benefit for Canada, it's time to let it go.

[Smallc]

American Woman is use trying to change the channel. She doesn't seem to like the fact that countries like Canada and Norway that have religious discrimination built into their constitutions (although to be fair, Canada also has religious freedom built into its constitution), actually, in many ways, have more religious tolerance than her country. There are things wrong with Canada to be sure, but very few if any of them have anything to do with religion.

And yes, you're right, it's extremely hypocritical for two Americans who spend so much time on a Canadian political board to be telling Canadian to mind their own business regarding American internal politics.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And yes, you're right, it's extremely hypocritical for two Americans who spend so much time on a Canadian political board to be telling Canadian to mind their own business regarding American internal politics.

That's OK...15% of polled Americans did not want to give up their domestic vote to participate in Canadian federal elections. Talk about not minding your own business...wannabe "hypocrites" like you actually want to vote in a foreign country.

A Canadian opinion poll conducted by Environics Research on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Environics Institute, The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir asked 2,001 Canadians over the age of 15 questions about how they see their role, and Canada's role, in the world. In the poll,

15% of Canadians polled said they would give up their vote in the next Canadian election to vote in the next American election

.

[cybercoma]

I, as well as many Americans, don't care about the religious beliefs of our POTUS.

Yeah, I can just imagine a Muslim POTUS. I have to imagine it because it would never happen.

[cybercoma]

That's OK...15% of polled Americans did not want to give up their domestic vote to participate in Canadian federal elections. Talk about not minding your own business...wannabe "hypocrites" like you actually want to vote in a foreign country.

A Canadian opinion poll conducted by Environics Research on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Environics Institute, The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir asked 2,001 Canadians

over the age of 15

questions about how they see their role, and Canada's role, in the world. In the poll, 15% of Canadians polled said they would give up their vote in the next Canadian election to vote in the next American election.

There's a reason 15, 16, and 17 year olds don't get to vote.

Edited November 25, 2011 by cybercoma