I found this article interesting, and in reading it I realized British, European, Australian and New Zealand friends would probably understand more easily than my American friends.
Geographical closeness, a common language, consumerism and similar culture do not mean we are alike.
In a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington, only 30 percent of Canadians said religion was very important to them, compared with 59 percent of Americans.
Twenty-one percent of Canadians said they attended religious services regularly in another survey taken in 2000 - about half the rate for Americans, although still a bit higher than the rate for most of Western Europe.
The statistics would be far more skewed were it not for the growing number of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu immigrants to Canada.
“This is a society where religion no longer wields cultural authority,” Marguerite Van Die, a theology professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, wrote recently.
I honestly cannot remember when it did. It is more common to see churches close or amalgamate than spring up, particularly in Quebec, which has abandoned catholism religiously.
In stark contrast with American presidents, Canadian prime ministers rarely, if ever, speak in religious terms. They even avoid being photographed attending church. It would be almost unthinkable for a prime minister to say “God Bless Canada.” It was only after former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s death that Canadians learned he was a devout Catholic.
Trudeau was a champion of keeping government out of the bedroom, and most Canadian politicians have followed that example. The few Canadian politicians who have raised abortion as an issue have suffered at the polls for doing so.
That is quite true. I think many of our politicans have a faith, and it is prudent to adhere to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ routine in the political theatre.
Though it has widened in recent years, Canadian scholars note, the divergence over religious content in Canadian and American societies goes back to different colonial pasts.
This historical divergence is important to understanding each countries frame of reference.
The Puritans who came to the New World in the 17th century as religious refugees never considered colonizing Canada’s eastern coast, because it was French and Roman Catholic. They went instead to Massachusetts, where their ideas of having a predestined and godly obligation to transmit their ideals to the world deeply influenced the American founding fathers.
“Religious rhetoric has played an important role in sanctifying major American political actions beginning with the War of Independence,” said Stephen Kent, a University of Alberta sociologist. Canada has never had a revolution or civil war or expansionist foreign policy, he noted, “so there was no need to sanctify major political events.”
I didn’t learn this in school. And this begs the question. What about the french population in Loiusiana?
Even before Canada was formed, the British saw the need to play down religion in the political sphere. They ceded the French colonists of the newly conquered New France (now Quebec) broader religious freedoms than even those available to Catholics living in Britain in the late 18th century. Otherwise, they would have risked rebellion or losing the territory to the Americans.
“Ever since, the way to deal with religion is to avoid it,” said David Marshall, a University of Calgary historian. “Because it is divisive, it is not part of our tradition.”
I’d hazard a guess that Canadians had other divisive things to deal with including geographical regions.
Quebec was the most religious area of Canada, a province where the Catholic church ran major institutions until the 1960’s.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
I think that many of your comments would apply here in Australia. We have several politicians at fairly high levels who are Christians, but it is not something which is a feature of political life as in USA. “Religion” is generally regarded as something private.
Shalom,
Jan
Wow, Bene, that’s an eye-opener. I knew it was that way in Europe, but not in Canada or South Pacific. Thanks for a great post, as always.
The Liberals’ attack on Stockwell Day for believing in a six-day creation was one of the most public displays of anti-Christian prejudice I’ve seen in a long time. (Don’t get me wrong, there was plenty to criticize Stockwell about, but attacking him for holding orthodox Christian beliefs was going too far.)
I can believe this — except that depending on where you went in the US, the results would be different. In the South and Midwest, you find a lot more people who think religion is important while on the West and East coasts, it isn’t as huge (the West Coast being more extreme in that respect). California, I think, would probably have things around 30% while Alabama would have things around 80%.
Hi Jen et al:
I readily admit there would be geographical diversity and distribution in both countries.
I had never seen the historical context outlined this clearly and it give some perspective.
I understood the Quiet Revolution in Quebec and the on going consequences, and now understand more clearly the difficulites in relating to US buddies in religious discussion.
What I am beginning to also understand is why.
I confess in my travels down the east coast of the US I’ve always been surprised at the blend of religion and culture because it is mostly foreign to me.
In reading god/war bloggers from the US, I am so used to the blend of religious and political language I rarely enter into discussion because I realize it is their only frame of reference, and mine is lost to them. Oddly enough I have found in blogging it is a problem only with some of my American blogging buddies as I stated at the top of the post.
I don’t think I’m unique in that.
Hopefully I can gain a better understanding of where we are coming from so I can be more accepting, respectful and clear with others. Blog on!
I am going to put a word in here if I may, don’t accuse me of US imperialism. :-)) There certainly are drawbacks with political figures blandly using religion as a ploy to gain votes, I won’t argue with that at all. But I don’t think that means religion should never be allowed in politics. (I’m assuming all of you are referring to religion in politics, not in general, private citizens like Peter and Paul certainly weren’t quiet about Christianity). If religion and politics were completely divided, we would not have the Psalms (written by a king), or many other books in the Bible. It’s just an observation, take it for what it’s worth…
Just to be clear, I assume we are talking about Christians in other countries, because there are many people in the US that worship the “Wall of separation between church and state,” but they aren’t Christians. The point is we are talking about Christians, right? In that case it’s pretty interesting, it seems like Biblical phrases and ideas would seep into political speech, I’m surprised that it doesn’t. I read the Bible enough to where the language and illustrations and allusions are almost second nature. Even non-religious people use Biblical phrases over here, LOL, which I’m sure is the point of not using them in other countries.
Hi William:
No one is going to call/accuse/label any individual imperialistic in their discussion here at this blog William.
You’re safe.:^)
Again, I have to honestly admit I don’t ever remember any Canadian politican publically using biblical/religious phrases.
Anyone who wishes to correct me feel free.
It would and has been a political death sentence.
Privately yes, I have spoken to all levels of elected officials about faith issues, but we are so politically correct here any politican using any religious language would probably be hauled before the human rights commission.
Separation of church and state is an American ideal, and the issue wouldn’t be argued that way in Canada.
Our Charter is very young, and the Supreme Court has more say than politicans.
I’m not saying religious language/belief is right/wrong and should be separated publically/privately.
I will say that Judeo-Christian language would be fired at first by sectors of our media and government.
We dont believe or see ourselves as a Christian nation.
In ‘O Canada’, we use God keep our land. It is assumed that is a generic god.
And…dominion from sea to sea….ask 10 Canadians the origin, 10 probably wouldn’t know.
I know as a broadcaster, any biblical/religious language ie: good samaritan etc., would best be used contextually.
So, I could say… yada yada the Good Samaritan law yada yada, but it would be sensible to frame it; because in a multi-cultural society I can’t assume other people would understand origin.
Even in everyday conversation, I can’t assume that.
This article points out the historical reasons we’ve diverged from our neighbours, without perhaps stating clearly why we continue too.
It’s still quite a shock to hear people talking in work about being Christians, going to church etc. You just wouldn’t *do* that in the UK. You don’t talk about it in public, just like you don’t talk to strangers on the London Underground. I like it here, but it’s still very different to my country.