and it's not as big a deal as it might be somewhere else.
54 % think its a big deal
Jump to content
Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:00 PM
Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:03 PM
Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:01 PM
Rick Perry isn't going to be the GOP candidate.
Edited by stopstaaron, 23 March 2012 - 04:02 PM.
Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:35 PM
Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:47 PM
Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:55 PM
Not the point... none of your top politicians should be saying pray the gay away, holding pray for rain rallies... talking bout banning contraceptives
wanting to put abortion doctors information on the internet .. these are not things a sane person would do or suggest
your countrys politicians are freaking insane
Posted 23 March 2012 - 05:11 PM
Whatever your survey says, the odds of the U.S. having an atheist president are much higher than the odds of Canada having a Catholic head of state - or even a head of state with a catholic spouse. The odds of that happening are zilch.
Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:26 AM
rofl US will not have an athiest president for at least 30 years
Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:29 AM
...Save yourself the trouble of trying to debate AW on this one.
She's a waste of time.....
Posted 24 March 2012 - 04:58 AM
Yep. Nothing makes me more a "waste of time" than being right. And as you said, the PM isn't even elected, so it really doesn't matter what the Canadian public thinks about his/her religion.
That's because AW is right....and the Canadian PM is not elected. The position is not even defined in the Constitution Act.
Posted 24 March 2012 - 05:17 AM
Posted 24 March 2012 - 05:30 AM
Exactly. They were implemented centuries ago but still in practice today. It's incredible that people who aren't protesting that, who are ok with that, have the gall to criticize Americans over polls regarding atheism and the presidency. What I said is a fact. As it stands, the U.S. will have an atheist president before Canada has a Catholic head of state - or even a head of state with a Catholic spouse.
Indeed, the anti-catholic laws were implemented in the UK some time in the 17th century. Incredible really that such obsolete laws have not been repealed.
It can't be obsolete and still exist. If "the alternative is even worse," then it's serving a purpose, which again, means it's not obsolete. As long as it's working "in practice," it's very much a part of the system. So again, why some Canadians are ok with that is beyond me, as those who are ok with it as they criticize Americans are a lost cause.
On the other hand the institution of monarchy itself is obsolete but the reason it still exists is because the alternative is considered even worse. It has been said that monarchy is a system which does not work in theory but works well in practice.