Canadian, American religious divide

[GostHacked]

When you say the British monarch is Canada's head of state, yes, you are wrong. Elizabeth certainly is both the British monarch and Canada's head of state, but the two offices are entirely separate. Would you dare to say the Canadian monarch is the United Kingdom's head of state?

Since it's the same person then I'll say yes.

[g_bambino]

Since it's the same person then I'll say yes.

And in doing so would imply that the Queen acting on the adivce and consent of her Canadian ministers and parliament has power over the United Kingdom; in other words, the UK is a self-governing colony of Canada. I'm certain everyone knows that isn't true.

[GostHacked]

And in doing so would imply that the Queen acting on the adivce and consent of her Canadian ministers and parliament has power over the United Kingdom; in other words, the UK is a self-governing colony of Canada. I'm certain everyone knows that isn't true.

Of course it is not true. However if one person has two different titles in two different countries, it might be impossible for her to have power over herself from another office. But in fact it would be the UK that would have authority or control over Canada, and not the other way around.

One person is the Queen of many countries. But I think this is off topic now ...

[jbg]

And in doing so would imply that the Queen acting on the adivce and consent of her Canadian ministers and parliament has power over the United Kingdom; in other words, the UK is a self-governing colony of Canada. I'm certain everyone knows that isn't true.

Of course it is not true. However if one person has two different titles in two different countries, it might be impossible for her to have power over herself from another office. But in fact it would be the UK that would have authority or control over Canada, and not the other way around.

One person is the Queen of many countries. But I think this is off topic now ...

This sounds like an argument over the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.

[g_bambino]

Of course it is not true.

Then so too is the statement that the British monarch is Canada's head of state; if it works one way, it works equally well the other. The British monarch (ie. the Queen in her British council, parliament, and courts) legally has zero powers of governance in Canada, just as the Canadian monarch (ie. the Queen in her Canadian council, parliament, and courts) legally has no powers of governance in Britain.

I think this is off topic now...

Likely.

[GostHacked]

Then so too is the statement that the British monarch is Canada's head of state; if it works one way, it works equally well the other.

Who is the Queen of Canada - Queen Elizabeth.

Who is the Queen of the UK - Queen Elizabeth.

I am simply pointing out it is the same person in both of those roles, regardless of what powers each office has.

[g_bambino]

I am simply pointing out it is the same person in both of those roles, regardless of what powers each office has.

And you are absolutely right in saying so. At issue, though, is the erronious notion inherent in August's statement that the two roles are one: "The British monarch [one post] is Canada's head of state [another entirely different post]".

[GostHacked]

And you are absolutely right in saying so. At issue, though, is the erronious notion inherent in August's statement that the two roles are one: "The British monarch [one post] is Canada's head of state [another entirely different post]".

But here is the problem I see with it, and I would suspect August's problem with it as well. Sure they are separate offices, and yes it is the same person. How does one divide themselves up so that there is no conflict of interest when sitting in each of those roles? How does that person have both the interests of Canada, and the interests of the UK without conflict? Not to mention the title that same person holds in all the other Commonwealth countries.

Edited November 28, 2011 by GostHacked

[jbg]

How does one divide themselves up so that there is no conflict of interest when sitting in each of those roles? How does that person have both the interests of Canada, and the interests of the UK without conflict? Not to mention the title that same person holds in all the other Commonwealth countries.

Same reason that there's no problem with a Canadian PM or U.S. President being Jewish.

The chance that Britain or Canada would have materially opposing interests is slim, much like the chance that Israel and either the U.S. or Canada would have materially opposing interests. We are just not headed for conflict under any imaginable circumstances.

[g_bambino]

How does one divide themselves up so that there is no conflict of interest when sitting in each of those roles?

By accepting that, as sovereign, one's interests are typically only the interests of one's responsible ministers; according to the tenets of both constitutional monarchy and responsible government, the head of state's personal interests are trumped by ministerial advice (so long as the ministers are acting lawfully).

In 1947, George VI, King of Pakistan, declared war on George VI, King of India. No doubt, George personally desired that conflict between the two countries he headed be avoided; but, as constitutional monarch of India, he was bound to follow the advice of his Indian ministers as much as he was to take the advice his Pakistani ministers were giving him as monarch of Pakistan, even though it, in law, made him an enemy of himself.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited November 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

In 1975, Toronto was a city of WASPs, and the Toronto police were WASPs from Ireland.

No it wasn't. Nearly half of Toronto's population wasn't born in Toronto. It's more mixed than Montreal. I love Montreal, but Toronto is far more multicultural.

[cybercoma]

And you are absolutely right in saying so. At issue, though, is the erronious notion inherent in August's statement that the two roles are one: "The British monarch [one post] is Canada's head of state [another entirely different post]".

This is a semantic issue. No one believes the role of the British monarch literally is Canada's Head of State. At least I don't think so. I always assumed people were just describing her by her other, more advertised role (ie, The Queen in England is Canada's Head of State).

[Smallc]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-omits-god-thanksgiving-address-riles-critics/story?id=15028644

In Canada? I don't think so.

[August1991]

What a thread...

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.

In fact, I think that you care about the religious beliefs of your president. Why do I think this? Because I think that you care about your country.

When it comes to religion/minorities and your leaders/politicians/governments, what do you Americans do? You look carefully.

In Canada, we seem to live and let live. You Americans, while also of the New World, are different from us. You're more like South Americans. We Canadians are northern.

Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991

[olp1fan]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-omits-god-thanksgiving-address-riles-critics/story?id=15028644

In Canada? I don't think so.

why even give a thanksgiving speech?

[Guest American Woman]

What a thread...

In fact, I think that you care about the religious beliefs of your president. Why do I think this? Because I think that you care about your country.

When it comes to religion/minorities and your leaders/politicians/governments, what do you Americans do? You look carefully.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Since you think I care about the religious beliefs of my president because I care about my country, and Canadians don't care, wouldn't it follow that Canadians don't care about their country? Shouldn't everyone "look carefully" when it comes to our leaders/government et al?

In Canada, we seem to live and let live.

Are you saying we don't? I'm really not following you here.

You Americans, while also of the New World, are different from us. You're more like South Americans. We Canadians are northern.

Now you've really lost me.....

[jbg]

why even give a thanksgiving speech?

Tradition going back to Abe Lincoln perhaps? That's the way our country works my friend. Tradition.

[g_bambino]

No one believes the role of the British monarch literally is Canada's Head of State.

Oh yes, despite the inherent logical fallacies, people do believe it. And August is one of them.

[g_bambino]

In fact, I think that you care about the religious beliefs of your president.

Indeed. There's no legal restrictions on the religious affiliations of the head of state (as we have in Canada), but there are unwritten, cultural barriers in place. Watching American elections from a Canadian perspective, I notice a significant focus on candidates' religious beliefs - the consistency and conviction thereof; much more than one would see in a Canadian campaign. While technically feasible, I can't imagine a non-Christian occupying the White House any time soon.

[Michael Hardner]

But the kids grow up to speak English. That's the language they learn in schoool.

You are skating sideways now: you said that all children in Toronto speak one language. They may indeed share one language, but they speak many many languages.

Michael, Montreal has been a city of mixed people (like Alexandria, Egypt once was) for over two centuries.

And what have you imported for us lately ? In the 1970s, a culture war was started that entrenched local culture, and it was successful.

In 1975, Toronto was a city of WASPs, and the Toronto police were WASPs from Ireland.

Irish are not normally 'WASPs', the 'P' standing for Protestant.

Again, you're debating Levesque-era differences. I feel that the Toronto-Montreal rivalry that once existed now still only exists in the minds of Montrealers. Torontonians love the other cities of Canada, especially Montreal and are generally flummoxed at the acrimony that is felt towards their city.

When the people of Toronto have managed in civil manner a community divided along religious and language lines for, let's say, 100 years, you can get back to me.

I suppose you may continue to feel superior about your city when you set the bar at such a silly height, but why bother ? Toronto is just a place, with it's strengths and weaknesses. It's the financial centre of Canada and cultural centre of English Canada, and has grown in exciting ways over 30 years.

But Montreal is still a superior experience when it comes to living in a joyous, celebratory, and enveloping culture.

Cities turn around in far shorter times than 100 years. I imagine downtown Detroit would have been a fun place in the mid 1960s. Manhattan was a cesspool in the 1980s. You need to visit Las Vegas every 5 years if you want to keep up.

[cybercoma]

Oh yes, despite the inherent logical fallacies, people do believe it. And August is one of them.

Yeah. I noticed in that other thread that there really is a feeling that the office of the British monarch has authority over Canada. Weird.

Even when I was arguing that we're a de facto republic, I didn't think that the offices overlapped: same person, different roles.

I suppose I was making assumptions.

I just believed that a monarch that acts on "ministerial advice", was really just rubber stamping things, while the (mostly, save the Chief Justice) democratically elected ministry was actually making the decisions.

Edited November 29, 2011 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

And you were mostly correct. I think that Bambino and I were just saying that us operating virtually the same as parliamentary republics (or rather, them operating like us doesn't make us one of them. There are subtle but important differences.

And thanks for the correction on the appointment thing Bambino.

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed. There's no legal restrictions on the religious affiliations of the head of state (as we have in Canada), but there are unwritten, cultural barriers in place.

No, there's not. That's simply your perception as an outsider. Before Obama, you all would have been saying that there are race barriers.

Watching American elections from a Canadian perspective, I notice a significant focus on candidates' religious beliefs

Watching American elections from a Canadian perspective is a lot different from watching it from an American perspective. You don't have the same focus, the same interests, concern about the same issues the same way we do. You focus on the religious, as a Canadian, but that doesn't mean Americans do.

- the consistency and conviction thereof; much more than one would see in a Canadian campaign.

As I've said before - so what? Harper was criticized and toned down the reference to religion. That's just the other side of the coin. Our candidates are outspoken about it and that's ok with the American voters. Your country isn't ok with it - but it's the same emphasis, only your concern is that they don't mention it. Doesn't mean religion means any less to them or that they base their decisions any less or any more on their religious beliefs than our candidates do. Harper is no less religious, that much is obvious.

While technically feasible, I can't imagine a non-Christian occupying the White House any time soon.

Really, what you can imagine has absolutely no bearing on anything - nothing to do with reality.

[olp1fan]

Watching American elections from a Canadian perspective is a lot different from watching it from an American perspective. You don't have the same focus, the same interests, concern about the same issues the same way we do. You focus on the religious, as a Canadian, but that doesn't mean Americans do.

It makes the U.S no different than middle eastern countries where religion is one of the main topics..instead of sharia law the U.S right wingers want Christian law..you're a democrat you clearly notice this

Harper is an evangelical but he hardly brings it up, he's conceded defeat in the same sex marriage issue and is even fighting for homosexual rights on the world stage..and he wants nothing to do with abortion..these two issues are the main wedge issues during U.S elections

so we can't help but notice the difference AW

[Guest American Woman]

It makes the U.S no different than middle eastern countries where religion is one of the main topics..instead of sharia law the U.S right wingers want Christian law..you're a democrat you clearly notice this

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.

Harper is an evangelical but he hardly brings it up, he's conceded defeat in the same sex marriage issue and is even fighting for homosexual rights on the world stage..and he wants nothing to do with abortion..these two issues are the main wedge issues during U.S elections

As I've already said, he's been criticized for his reference and toned it down - you think that's changed how he feels? How he acts?

so we can't help but notice the difference AW

I'm not saying there isn't a difference, especially in the openness of it - quite the opposite. I'm saying that because our candidates are open about it and yours aren't, you over emphasize the role of religion in American politics, the importance of it in our campaigns, the importance to Americans. It appears to be much more important in many Canadians' minds.