[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

Citizenship is a declaration of loyalty. If you have dual citizenship and your two nations have separate interests, you must choose one. It's not unreasonable to act to prevent conflict of interest in public officials.

Oh I fully agree there. I think there is enough of a system of balances and checks in our system in Canada to deal with that.

That and if a candidate claims they are going to rule based on the principles of a foreign country or their religion then I think that all criticism is fair. That's why people are giving Romney such a hard time while not being as concerned with the Liberal affair.

[Psudo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

if a candidate claims they are going to rule based on the principles of a foreign country or their religion then I think that all criticism is fair. That's why people are giving Romney such a hard time

I don't see how that follows. When did Romney say anything about ruling from his religious principles?

[CanadianJeff]

Actually to be fair Romeny has said that he is "An American running for president.." however I think it's very clear that many of his policies are overly influenced by his faith.

Where he clearly steps over the line and into the realm of stupid is when he professes that he feels Christianity should be in public ceremony and held up as a badge of duty. We all saw the results of that kind of policy with George Bush.

[EyeBrock]

I'm not one of the faithful but really, what is wrong with having a Christian doing the job?

We bend over backwards to accommodate other faiths but diss any Yank who dare profess their belief in Christianity.

Up until the 1960's, Christianity was pretty mainstream in our culture and had been a tenet of Western civilisation since the Romans stopped chucking Christians to lions in the 4th Century AD.

Secularism in the West is a pretty recent development and seemingly only stretches to excluding Christians.

I'm not a religious guy but I'm starting to feel sorry for these bible-bashers who are the focal point of vehement ridicule and vitriol of the self-appointed secularists that seem to have the loudest voice these days.

[andyt]

Read what Jeff wrote. Most people in the US running profess to be Chistian. That's different than making Christianity part of public ceremony and "badge of duty." Christians say what's wrong with it until a non-Christian wants to do the same thing - then they're not so keen on it. Allow one faith into the public realm, you have to allow all of them.

[EyeBrock]

And read what I posted andy.

[Psudo]

Uh... can I get a source for the claim that Romney says being Christian is a badge of duty? That would be contrary to my impression of him, and might conflict with the Mormon religious mandate to let all people worship how, where, and what they may.

[CanadianJeff]

[QBC]

"American tire of those who would jettison their beliefs even to gain the world"

Is Romney runing for president of the United States or King of the world?

[CanadianJeff]

EyeBrock wrote:

I'm not one of the faithful but really, what is wrong with having a Christian doing the job?

We bend over backwards to accommodate other faiths but diss any Yank who dare profess their belief in Christianity.

Up until the 1960's, Christianity was pretty mainstream in our culture and had been a tenet of Western civilization since the Romans stopped chucking Christians to lions in the 4th Century AD.

Secularism in the West is a pretty recent development and seemingly only stretches to excluding Christians.

I'm not a religious guy but I'm starting to feel sorry for these bible-bashers who are the focal point of vehement ridicule and vitriol of the self-appointed secularists that seem to have the loudest voice these days.

It's not the fact that they are Christian. It's that they don't respect Church state separation or run a country based on religious doctrine then actual fact.

That and you understand claiming that Christianity was a staple of US society until 1960 is absurd if you actually study history. Part of the reason the US was founded was to get away from theocratic states like the Church of England.

[BeaverFever]

2 more reasons:

1) People seek or hang on to another citizenship so their CHILDREN will have more options with school, work, etc. Nothing wrong with that. I've never met a dual US/Canadian citizen that didn't brag his ass off about how priveleged they feel as a "continental citizen" and how easy it would be for them to get a job, purchase property or retire anywhere in North America he wished.

2) In some countries, you must remain a citizen to collect certain government retirement benefits akin to our CPP and OAS. Many highly-skilled immigrants, who spent a significant part of their career working and paying into such programs and are relying on those future payments for their retirment.

I don't see what the big deal is, its just a symbolic issue, really.