The Queen of the UK is head of the Church of England. The Queen of Canada happens to be the same individual, but Canada has no established church. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of no church.
Now you’re right that some Canadian provinces have Catholic schools. Others don’t. The separation of church and state is more absolute in the US than in Canada, but it’s a concept that exists in Canada as well.
I would say the concept exists only inasmuch as Canadians occasionally forget that they aren’t Americans — particularly given that it’s a bit of an all-or-nothing concept. YMMV, of course.
Double post
Like I said, a country with religious schools supported by the government does not believe in the Separation of Church and State.
Particularly when they’re only religious schools for the approved religions. I’ll assume you think that Ontario should fund Madrassas.
All or nothing? I don’t know. If separation of church and state was really absolute in the US, American politicians wouldn’t always pepper their speeches with requests for God to bless America. The fact that Congress may not make laws respecting the establishment of religion, as per the first amendment, is not the be-all of separation of church and state.
If you think having another country’s useless figurehead monarch as your country’s even more useless figurehead monarch means that church and state are insuperably enmeshed, then I’m not sure what to tell you except that I suspect you’re clinging to unreasonable and idiosyncratic definitions.
? I’m honestly a little baffled both by your words and your tone. When have I said anything about Islam and its relation to the relationship between church and state? FWIW I don’t think Islam is a threat to Western values (and have to my knowledge have made no comment to that effect).
No, stating that a nation with government sponsored religious schools and no legal guarantee of “Separation of Church and State” and which has Protestant Churches to run the schoolboards does not believe in the Separation. Of Church and State is the common understanding of the term.
Moreover the Canadian Constitution specifically references God.
Anyway, I don’t understand why people are getting upset about it since there are lots of liberal democracies with no Separation of Church and State.
For example, the UK, Ireland, Japan, the Scandanavian countries and Israel
France, Turkey and the US appear to be the exception not the rule.
I apologize. I came across as far harsher than I intended and worded that poorly.
What I meant to convey was that it seemed to me that based on your standards, virtually every country in the world except Saudi Arabia and Iran have Separation of Church and State.
Smarter, perhaps. Wittier? Well, usually…
Quoting my wikiquote from the post at the top of this page:
It sounds as though what Canada’s got is a combination of our (US) “accommodation interpretation” and Free Exercise clause: that is, Canadians can practice whatever religion they like and the gummint can’t give one religion better treatment than others (e.g., more tax breaks).
However, AFAICT the Canadian constitution doesn’t actually have anything like our “separation interpretation” of the Establishment Clause which explicitly prohibits the government from associating itself with religion.
In other words, ISTM that Canadians could establish a national church if they wanted one, as long as they didn’t give it preferential tax breaks or provide its adherents with better health care or any other unequal-accommodation stuff. That’s the sort of thing that the Jeffersonian “wall of separation between church and state” outright forbids our government to do.
So yeah, it’s not that Canadian church and state actually are entangled in practical terms, it’s that there’s no constitutional provision officially disallowing any such entanglement. And in fact, such entanglement does exist (although only in a nominal ceremonial form) in the provision that the Canadian head of state is by definition the highest authority in the Church of England.
I think paying for schools of a certain religion qualifies as “better treatment than others” — but yes, at least in certain contexts, giving different government treatment to different religious groups would violate our Charter rights.
It is also worth pointed out, like I made reference to earlier, Canadians do sort of believe in an idea they call “separation of church and state”, but it can sometimes just mean “We don’t like having religiously conservative leaders.” AFAICR, that started being a viable talking point in 2000, when the Liberals started using it as a talking point against the Reform Party.
Except Canada does have government-funded Catholic schools but not government-funded Madrassas or Yeshivas so that is clearly not true.
Sorry, should also respond to this. “Separation of church and state” does not mean that representatives cannot or should not wear their religion on their sleeve, it just means the lack of formal association between the government and a particular religious creed. But I agree, people do sometimes stretch the concept to mean more — honestly though, it really is more of a talking point against politicians you don’t like than a Constitutional claim (or, IMHO, any other sort of legitimate claim.)
It’s also worth pointing out that those three countries have very different ideas about what secularism means — in France and Turkey, it means active restrictions on the expression of religion in the public sphere, whereas in the US it simply means an aspiration to governmental neutrality in matters of religion.
Incidentally, I’m not sure who mentioned how much bigger an issue Muslim accommodation is in Europe than the US, but our American Dopers should realize that Canada has a very substantial Muslim population, and the Muslim/anti-Muslim politics look more like in Europe. Without being too snobby, the main point of divergence from Europe is that Canada has integrated its immigrants far better, and there is little comparatively patience for BNP-esque politics. Quebec has been the one province passing anti-Muslim policies, but anti-immigrant politics are really nothing new for Quebec.
When the President mentions God in all his speeches, I tend to see it as favouring a religious lifestyle (if not a particular confession) over a secular lifestyle.
Bring cites or get out.
I don’t see what the relevance of your first point is.
In terms of anti-Muslim policies, I was thinking of the infamous Niqab ban — though, to be fair, I misspoke: the bill was not passed, but only tabled. As for anti-immigrant politics, I’m not even sure where to start.
That’s okay. In retrospect I probably shouldn’t have barged into the middle of an ongoing conversation to weigh in on a contentious side-point.
(Irrationally, perhaps, I’ve had an odd respect for Islam ever since my sister married a Senegalese Sufi. Any religion followed by someone that patient and kind with my well-meaning, but flatly batshit insane, sister simply couldn’t be all that bad. Even if he embarrasses me by trying to get me to speak French.)
In Spain at least, a school can belong to a religious organization and receive funds from the government, but one of the requirements for this is that students cannot be required to receive instruction in that religion.
For example, the concerted school my nephews attend belongs to a Catholic religious order; there are school festivals which include a Mass, but that Mass is optional; there are several grades in which the national curriculum requires every school to offer students a course in Ethics with the possibility of offering an alternate choice in Religion, and for most of those grades the school offers your choice of “Ethics” and “RCC” (there are other grades where it’s History of Religion or Comparative Theology, both of which speak about many religions).
A school offering “Ethics” and “Islam” would be perfectly acceptable. One offering Islam only would not be able to receive government funds under the concerted model; they could still receive funds for other purposes (for example if they offered subsidized meals to poor students) but not for the teaching itself.
This is true, and it is a reflection of Canada’s history: the creation of seperate school boards for Catholics was part of the whole “two-nations” thing - really, a reflection of the anglo-franco (and thus broadly protestant/catholic) split.
These days, it is looking increasingly like a relic of the past. Ontario is no longer defined by the anglo-franco, protestant/catholic split (ask someone on the street in Toronto about what they think of the “Orangemen” today, and they likely would have no idea what you were talking about! But every mayor of Toronto in the first half of the twentieth century was an Orangeman).
It isn’t like the Canadians to enact hard-line rules about stuff like that; thus survivals exist of official, government mention of or support for religion. But they are more relics of a past than portents for the future. A broad consensus exusts that, aside from such accomodations to history (and Native Canadians are another major field for such accomodations), official support for religions (insofar as it exists) really ought to be even-handed going forward, a matter of support for culture generally.
To oversimplify, there is a quantum of hate and fear in the world. Some of us labor to reduce it, others, to expand it, some are part of the problem, some are part of the solution. The Muslim extremist who pours hatred and fear unto his fellows is part of the problem, as are** LP** and Valteron, I and others here work, in our various ways, to be part of the solution.
Its taking a lot longer than it should, and we could use their help, if they’ve nothing better to do.
I am disappointed to find that I am not on your “ignore” list. Perhaps that would be for the best, don’t you think?