Canadians would vote for Muslim or Aethiest instead of Evang

OTTAWA - Canadians are becoming increasingly uneasy about mixing religion and politics and they'd be more likely to vote for a party lead by an atheist or a Muslim than an evangelical Christian, suggests a new poll.

The survey was conducted for CanWest News Service late last week, less than three months after Canadians voted for a government led by Stephen Harper, an evangelical Christian and one of the country's most openly religious leaders in decades.

``There's an increasing discomfort with a mixture of religion and politics, which is occurring at the same time as religion and politics are becoming increasingly intertwined,'' said Andrew Grenville, a senior vice-president of the polling firm Ipsos Reid.

The firm conducted its telephone survey with 814 Canadians and 768 Americans on April 11-12. The poll has a margin of error within 3.5 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

Only 63 per cent of Canadians said they'd vote for a party leader and potential prime minister who is an evangelical Christian, even if they liked the party and its views. That dropped from 80 per cent a decade ago.

Canadians appear to be slightly more accepting of a potential prime minister who is a Muslim or atheist.

Sixty-eight per cent said they would vote for a candidate in either of those categories, a drop from 74 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively, in 1996.

The poll also indicates support has slipped for traditional Christian values playing a major role in politics.

Grenville speculated that nervousness about American politics _ more so than the ``Harper factor'' _ is responsible for Canadians shying away from politics with religious overtones.

``One part of it is probably the Stephen Harper factor, but I don't think he has been really wearing his religion on his sleeve, nor really embraced strong moral stances that can be traced back to religious belief,'' Grenville said. ``It's the U.S. example that has really turned people off.''

The so-called religious right in the United States is considered to be largely responsible for sending President George W. Bush back to the White House in 2004. Moreover, the invasion of Iraq, which Canada did not support, was widely regarded to be infused with religious overtones.

``I wonder if we're being reactionary when we hear George Bush spouting off Bible verses along with rhetoric around his war?'' said Richard Ascough, a religious scholar at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

``I think there's a way we react in Canada by saying `we're not that.' We tend to define ourselves by what we're not.''

Americans who were surveyed also appear to be less inclined than they were a decade ago to vote for a leader who is an evangelical Christian, even if they liked the party and its views. Only 64 per cent would do so, compared with 78 per cent 10 years ago. The results also suggest Americans would be more likely to vote for atheists or Muslims as leaders than they would have been in 1996.

In Canada, there was also a slip in the belief Christians should get into politics to protect their values, with only 39 per cent agreeing with the idea, compared with 46 per cent a decade ago. There was also a five per cent drop _ to 40 per cent from 45 per cent _ in the number who believe it's essential for Christian values to play a major role.

Grenville said he believes there's been a bit of a backlash against the divisive political debate in the last couple of years over same-sex marriage.

``To me it suggests a growing divide in Canadian culture where religion can become that wedge that pushes people apart,'' he said.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...cb9878&k=62108

I am so delighted to see that!

I really truly believe that the underlying sentiment in Canada is to stuff religion away, we don't want anything to do with it. Well, the majority of us anyhow, there is still a strong 15% or 20% of us who are religious.

The propaganda would have us believe that # is more like 50%, but its not, no way.

The media's propaganda constantly points to the small minority of "faithfull" hangers-on. Lately there has been an escalation in religious programming and religious stories on the news. The Corporate Media and their Wealthy Elite Overlords would love it if we were all worshippers of one religion or another, as we would be much easier to control and convince, as is in evidence in the USA right now. Follow that lunatic!!

I think the raging hypocracy of religious like GW Bush is at the heart of this abandonment of religion. When we see the 10 commandments being broken while using religion as a tool for whipping up national outrage against some oil-rich nation, we know it is time to get out.

Hypocracy like being against abortion but FOR the death penalty ; where torture is okay and all those innocent Iraqi civilian deaths for some oil is allright are examples of this hypocracy when spouting the bible Thou Shalt Not Kill [or, Thall Shout not Kill?].

I would point out that there is "just as good a relationship with your god" when you talk to him in private as when you go to church. Religion has allways been about controlling populations or maybe some social interaction, and less about a relationship with your god.

Its easier for people like me, as we don't have any gods to define or defend.

Thank you for posting that interesting article, Jersay.

Religious Interventions in Canada

In my opinion, the debate on the Civil Marriage Act sort of represented the climax of religious involvement in our democratic institutions in Canada. Members who opposed the Act were standing up in the House of Commons, reading scripture from the Bible as testimony in opposition to the legislative measures, and most of those who were brought to testify before Committees (in both the Commons, and the Senate) were representatives of a Church, or some other religious institution.

I think that this intervention by the Church in a matter before the Parliament of Canada tended to irritate many citizens. I, for one, was quite angered to discover that the only argument against same-sex marriage delivered at length to the Commons, and the Senate, was that their own interpretation of biblical text led them to believe that it was in opposition to Christian values — there were attempts to have these values imposed upon each and every citizen and resident, whether or not they consented. I think it would be prudent, in every case, to err on the side of more rights, than to err on the side of restricting them.

Muslim or Atheist Head of Government

I have never thought of one's faith to be a big component when voting for a Prime Minister of Canada — in the past, anyway. Recent events, in the United States of America, have quite honestly led me to lose whatever faith I had remaining in Christianity, and to believe that perhaps it's more of a complication than a good thing. The conduct of His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States, is a major part in that assessment — I often have the impression that there are religious undertones in relation to his War on Terror.

I agree with the survey; I do, in fact, think that I would be more likely to vote for someone who was a Muslim, or an Atheist, than I would for a Christian at this point in time. I would hope that there can be a revived discussion regarding the separation between the Crown and the Church, so that perhaps one day I could vote in complete comfort for someone who was a religious Christian — in a good-faith belief that it wouldn't result in the imposing of their values on me, and other citizens of Canada.

Your fooling yourselves.

--

Are we fooling ourselves? Or are you trying to fool the rest of us.

An interesting article, Jay, thank you.

However, that doesn't veto the fact that I think I would have more trust for a Muslim Prime Minister to govern sans¹ religion, than I would a Christian Prime Minister (at this point in time). With recent events at home, my trust for Christian leaders has decreased quite a lot — I hope for the day when we can have a moderate Christian leader, who respects the convention of separation between the Crown and the Church, to restore my faith in such.

Revision : (1) Corrected a formatting error.

It wasn't meant to "veto" anything...it was shown to you so you would understand that your fooling yourself with the Muslim thing.


Paul Martin is a Christian.....

However, Jay, as he demonstrated in the House of Commons, the Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., the Member for LaSalle—Émard, decided to ignore the wishes from the Church for him to cease his efforts to legislate same-sex marriage in Canada. He was able to separate his faith from his role as leader.

What am I missing here?

Mr. Martin is no longer the Prime Minister, Jay; and the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, does not seem to have quite as much esteem for this separation — alongside his like-minded friend, His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States of America.

So what your really saying is the resotation of your faith and such has taken a real beating over the last month.

I don't get it...

What has religion got to do with someone running for office?

If he/she worships the Goddess of Acorn Squash each September whose business is it?

Did Chretien or Martin have any particular worshipful ways...and if they did .... did it affect their leadership of the people of Canada?

Is it because Harper is a conservative...ie: Christian ... or.. Gnostic... whatever the current gossip is?

How does this compute during legislative issues and voting???

What has Harper done????? Has he called for general prayer before one of his speeches?

Does he haul around a large bible everywhere he goes?

Does he bless folk?

Did he celebrate Easter????

What????

Near as I can tell WC, but you better take a seat incase you get the vipers! He once stated "God Bless Canada". I know the horror, the horror of it all.

The chocies in the poll of an atheist or a Muslim or an evangelical Christian are not equivalent and there is a bias in favour of the first two choices. If one were to ask the question using Muslim fundamentalist and evangelical Christian then one would have a more balanced choice.

What might be interesting is to do a poll in the Muslim and Christian communities in Canada asking them what they think of same sex marriage. This way we could see to what extent the views of Muslims reflect those of fellow Muslims in countries like Iran where homosexulaity is punishable by death or Malaysia where it is a criminal offense. And we could also see to what extent Christian views follow those of Roman Catholics or Pentecostals in the US.

Faced with the prospect of a Muslim running for a party leadership it would be interesting to see if the way the person presented him or herself would affect public support. If say a wife wore a burka or not while at his side or if the candidate wanted to introduce sharia law.

Damn what hatred I have read in posts about Muslim people in general that some people are totally afraid of having a Muslim leader.

Jay, interesting article, but that is in Iraq, I guess your painting of all Muslims as intolerant just doesn't work. Because it is just the religious Muslims like it is the religious Christians who cause problems with people and they are a small minority.

I actually this posted this article because this looks good for me, they would vote for a Heathen than a Christian. Excellent.

Sanch

That's pretty scary - Canada being put under Sha'ria law....

What's wrong with Shari'a law if it is administered by the government for family affairs? Why should Judaism or Catholicism or another religion have a special tribunal for family affairs and a 'evolved' Shari'a law should be excluded. As in Ontario.

And so what if a Muslim woman wears a burka?? If it is in her religious practice and she wants to wear a burka why shouldn't she.

I wouldn't object at all to a PM from another ethnic background. My preference would be to keep religion out of it no matter who the candidate.

But again it is note worthy to point out that George W Bush has had a very ethnically diverse cabinet. Neither the liberals nor conservatives in Canada even come close to his record.

Jersay

I have no objection to outer garments chosen by those of devout practice.

It is their family law which I object to. Divorce Sha'ria style does not appeal to me - or I would imagine - many western people.

This is not about Cabinet though this is either PM or I guess President. Which I find surprising because I read a report where majority people in America looked lowly on Islamic followers.

Oh just about Sharia law, in Ontario's case.

Many consider the punishments perscribed by Sharia as being barbaric and cruel; Islamic scholars argue that, if implemented properly, the punishments serve as a deterrent to crime. In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crime of adultery, and other such punishments such as amputations for the crime of theft and flogging for fornication or public intoxication. [5]

An unusual secular-state example was the proposal for a Sharia arbitration court to be established in Ontario, Canada. That province's 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid congestion and delay in the court system. The court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Critics claimed that misogyny which they held to be inherent in Sharia might influence the Canadian justice system, but proponents argued that those who do not wish to go by the court's rulings are not forced to attend it. Moreover, these sharia courts in Canada are only orthodox in a limited way as they respect the priority of Canadian civil law. Anybody not satisfied with a ruling from the sharia court can appeal to a civil court. As such, this sharia court would be only a very pale version of Sharia.

On September 11, 2005, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty stated in a telephone interview that religious arbitration would no longer be allowed. However, the proposed changes to the Ontario Arbitration Act[6] do not specifically mention religious arbitration, but reduce the power of private arbitration in the area of family law, and introduce other changes. Specifically, under the proposed changes family arbitrators will be regulated, participants in family law arbitration cases will not be able to give up their right to appeal an arbitrator's decision to a court, and a pre-nuptial agreement to resolve family law matters, should they arise, through an arbitrator rather than through a court will no longer be binding.

Nevertheless, the proposed changes were condemned by parts of the Muslim community.[citation needed]

Though Islamic law is interpreted differently across times, places and scholars, following fundamentalist's literal and traditional interpretations, however, it is legally binding on all people of the faith and even on all people who come under their control.

--