Thursday, August 19, 2010

Do you care about the Prime Minister's religion?

American reports today are all excited about a survey that suggest more than 10% of Americans are wrong about President Obama's religion (they think he's Muslim).

Now, the mere fact the survey was taken, or is seen as news worthy, is suggestive.

If 15% of Canadians wrongly believe Stephen Harper is, say, Roman Catholic, is that error interesting? Is it newsworthy?

No -- and that's because everyone (well, I assume there are some crazies who do care) is fine with a Roman Catholic Prime Minister.

But in believing Obama is Muslim (and that's what the polls focus on) there is the implication that he's not fit to be President.

And that's wrong on many levels. To paraphrase, a person should "not be judged by the color of their skin - or their faith - but by the content of their character"

20 comments:

That guy said...

The thing is, in US political discourse right now, the words "Christian" and "Muslim" have been emptied of their doctrinal content and have become mere positional markers. They're culturally-loaded synonyms for "Us" and "Them," nothing more.

Anonymous said...

I'm an agnostic so I don't care about anyone's religion.

But as Chet says, in the US and here too, religious labels are just loaded terms for us vs. them.

For 1 in 4 Americans to believe Obama is a Muslim is insanity.

One wonders what things in the USA would be like if the economy wasn't so bad.

evilscientist said...

The PM's religion is only important to me if he tries to force it on me through legislation or regulation. Beyond that it's irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. We really don't have much fuss over the faiths of our politicians in Canada. This isn't to say that some people don't want to make it an issue. The "Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda" has the occaisional nutter who thinks there's some kind of vast Christian conspiracy to establish a theocracy. Marci McDonald's book springs to mind.

Anonymous said...

I would have to agree with you, that a leader`s religion is not relavent, but with one exception. That is, if the leader is a fundamentalist of ANY stripe. And as it relates to Christian fundamentalism, I would ask you to consider whether the following set of beliefs by a leader, is compatible with the needs of a progressive society.

The belief in the Bible as a literal direct dictation from God.

The belief that the universe is 6,000 years old.(see above)

Rather strong End Time beliefs that Jesus is going to come and lift the faithful bodily into heaven, while the rest of humanity (i.e. those that do not accept J.C. as their personal saviour) are going to be thrown into hell for eternal damnation.

Now whether or not Harper is really an evangelical, I don`t know. He`s been attending a fundamentalist church for 20 years, but maybe he only did it to further his right-wing credentials. On the other hand, if he believes this stuff, yeah, I think the people have a right to know.

Anonymous said...

Whatever shall I wear to the Rapture?

Anonymous said...

The problem is that "fundamentalist" is frequently used as a stand-in for "religion I don't like".

A couple of points:

One:

"The belief in the Bible as a literal direct dictation from God."

No Christian church teaches this. Not one. It is directly contradictory to the teachings of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant branches including the evangelical Protestants and Pentacostals. All Christian churches teach that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Islam teaches direct dictation from God, but no Christian church does. None.

Yes, Harper is an evangelical. He attends the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination which is a protestant denomination of an evangelical pursuasion. It's a fairly average "vanilla" Protestant church. Harper's attendance is meaningless unless "evangelical" is a stand-in for "religion I don't like". I've attended a few different denominations over the years from each of the three main branches and if anyone's got their panties in a bunch because Harper goes to the C&M Alliance they are an ignorant nitwit.

Two:

Beliefs about the age of the earth don't affect public policy. Disapproving of a candidate over this amounts to nothing more than "He believes something I think is silly, so I don't think he's wise enough to vote for". Of course that would apply to most candidates from religions you don't believe in.

Skinny Dipper said...

I will guess that if one surveyed Americans and asked them what the dominant religion of Arab-Americans is, they would guess Islam. They would be incorrect. It is Christianity by about 70%.

bocanut said...

Is Count Iggy an atheist?

KC said...

Beliefs about the age of the earth don't affect public policy.

Not directly, but they show a proclivity towards believing religious myth in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. If you literally believe the world is 6000 years old you're believing that despite very strong evidence to the contrary. Thats deeply concerning for those of us who demand reason and evidence based public policy.

Religious identification means nothing for my vote because people identify with particular religion but still don't necessarily believe things that members of that religion often/usually/almost always believe in. The fact that someone identifies themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, etc. etc. doesn't tell me enough. Many (most?) Christians reject a lot of Old Testament teachings; Muslims vary greatly in how they interpret various parts of the Quran, and which Hadith's they think are genuine. I am prepared to unpack these labels however to see if the person believes in facts that conflict with actual knowledge acquired through observation and reason, or values that are repugnant to modern liberal secular humanist values.

Anonymous said...

I only care about a PM's religion and the possible way it could influence policy.

Anonymous said...

We really should care. If someone believes is a mythical pony, who, incidentally, dies every seven years and is reborn, that tells him how to govern we'd rightly question their grip on reality, and perhaps their fitness to run a country.

What if they we guided by the principles of a 2000 year old guy who, the politician claims, at some point came back from the dead? Maybe we should question that person's grip on reality and their fitness to govern?

James C Morton said...

I used Harper as a contrast to Obama. Obviously religion is important insofar as it affects policy. That said, Obama is not a Muslim but if he was it shouldn't make any difference. A good friend -- of south asian background -- once told me "generally you are the religion of your parents and so you don't have much choice in the matter" and she was right. What we do have choices about is how we treat each other. And a crabbed narrow view where we all fear the foreigner is not the way to go.

James C Morton said...

I used Harper as a contrast to Obama. Obviously religion is important insofar as it affects policy. That said, Obama is not a Muslim but if he was it shouldn't make any difference. A good friend -- of south asian background -- once told me "generally you are the religion of your parents and so you don't have much choice in the matter" and she was right. What we do have choices about is how we treat each other. And a crabbed narrow view where we all fear the foreigner is not the way to go.

Anonymous said...

So in the 21st century people are STILL being judged by which imaginary friend they choose to worship and to disappoint for being human?
The fact that religion is still even an issue is what's wrong with the planet. Think about it. The worst countries to live in are theocracies. 23% of Canadians are non-religious. And we're stil one of the best places to live in the world.

Fred from BC said...

Cherniak_WTF said...

I only care about a PM's religion and the possible way it could influence policy.


That's a sensible and practical attitude, since MPs and cabinet ministers don't make their own policy. The Prime Minister ultimately makes those decisions...

Anonymous said...

Reading over some of these comments, I get the distinct sense that some people are a lot less enlightened than the Americans were when they elected President Kennedy. In that election voters gave the clear message that what a candidates religion *might* mean for their policies wasn't the important issue, the issue was what those policies actually were. Americans used to worry about what a Roman Catholic *might* do. With Kennedy they proved that they cared about what he said he would do and what he actually did and not with what he *might* do because of his scary religion.

Anonymous said...

Religion does not have a place in any kind of government decision. Do you remember Bush? Everything second word that came out of his mouth was related to the bible. God told him to invade Iraq....what nonsence.

Stephen Downes said...

Actually, I don't know what Harper's religion is (I suppose it's mentioned somewhere in the comments but I skipped over them).

Anonymous said...

What's up to all, it's in fact a fastidious
for me to pay a visit this web site, it contains useful
Information.

Also visit my site; Removal Men Firms Ipswich