Comment by jvm___
21 days ago
Freedom from is the American way.
Freedom to is the Canadian way.
That's why Canada becoming an American anything is ridiculous and pisses off Canada so much that, for example, we've reduced our flights to America by +70% over the coming months.
Not when it comes to religion though: the European way (and I feel very much like considering Canadians something like honorary Europeans these days) was forged in painful wars stemming from and fueled by influence of religion on politics, and abuse of religion by politics. Both on the collective level, not so much on the individual level. The European way is all about having a strong firewall between religion and politics, to keep the former out of the later. Freedom from.
The American way is completely devoid of that concept. It's all built on that Pilgrim Fathers founding myth and only ever cares about keeping the state from getting in the way of individual beliefs. It's so focused on that part and only that part that even an almost-all-out theocracy would be fine as long as it did not mess with individual beliefs. "Freedom to" without the tiniest trace of "freedom from".
This is factually incorrect. Even though in most European countries there is a formal separation of religion and state, there is nothing that "forbids" any political party from having a strong religious affiliation. In fact, in nearly every European country there are major political parties with a strong Christian affiliation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy
There are even countries which have political parties that are Islamic affiliated.
The separation between religion and state refers to two things: the state not being able to enforce any religious aspects on citizens (freedom TO exercise any religion without interference from government), and religious entities not being able to influence or pressure the government outside the electoral process (freedom TO govern without interference from religious entities). Neither of these things prevents a political party founded on religious beliefs to participate in the electoral process.
Parent never said that political parties were forbidden from having a religious affiliation. Yet, the 'Christian' in European 'Christian democracy' is not remotely comparable to the role of religion in the society of the USA.
The USA is overtly and intentionally Christian: American banknotes have "In God We Trust" emblazoned on one side, and schoolchildren (usually) recite an oath pledging allegiance to "one nation under God". Christian democracy, on the other hand, usually stands for a loosely defined, mildly conservative political ideology in a strictly secular system of governance.
> The European way is all about having a strong firewall between religion and politics
I find this quite contrary to my experience of e.g. modern Germany, Spain, Poland, Italy where many politicians are explicitly religious, laws are written with majority religious affiliation in mind, religious taxes may still be levied. Even France still feels in many ways like a "catholic country", even if they do have good explicit separation of church and state.
I would have said that government and (Christian) religion are completely inextricable for most Europeans, even if the majority of the population isn't seriously devout or even practicing.
Things like church taxes handled by the state in Germany (entirely opt-in, even when it's effectively opt-out for individuals opted in by their parents) have the opposite effect though, they make the churches boring institutions (except for the occasional child abuse wtf that haunts them just like any other church) far from any radicalization.
When you dig deeper in Germany it gets surprisingly murky, e.g. bishops not paid out of those church taxes but out of regular state taxes, e.g. those paid by atheists and Muslims, which dates back to Napoleonic age secularization when those payments were introduced as a (meager) compensation for the enormous income the (catholic) church had from being worldly lords of enormous realms. But this as well contribute to keeping the churches out of politics. They know pretty well what is their place and what isn't.
Canada does the opposite of America even if it hurts Canada - it’s a part of its identity.
Redefining freedom as “forcing something on people for their own good” is not how anyone actually defines freedom.
It’s like saying children have the most freedom because their parents force them to do things that will benefit them.
> Canada does the opposite of America even if it hurts Canada - it’s a part of its identity.
As a duel citizen of the US and another Commonwealth nation, I have to say that this is exactly the ridiculous self-caricature perspective that gives foreign nationals a sort of combination of pity and contempt for the average US citizen.
While it's true that your cartoonish portrayal of freedom is one possible interpretation, there are most certainly others, many of which present citizens with actual measurable freedoms that they would not enjoy in the US.
For instance, Australians have, since the late 1990s, been relatively free of mass shootings, especially in schools or other public areas. Because the police are allowed to force you to take a random breathalyser test without probable cause, we are generally substantially freer of drunk driving. Because we have a social safety net, people are free from the need to opt out of life saving surgery because they fear the abject economic violence that the US visits upon the "uninsured".
On the other hand, the US has substantially more sensible libel laws than most Commonwealth countries. These things can cut both ways, but it would be a mistake to interpret other countries as attempting a childish breath holding exercise just to differentiate themselves from the hip and cool nation.
> As a duel citizen of the US and another Commonwealth nation, I have to say that this is exactly the ridiculous self-caricature perspective that gives foreign nationals a sort of combination of pity and contempt for the average US citizen.
Ahh, you see there you made a mistake. I'm not American.
And your examples of "this is better" don't address the point I made - how Canadians identify themselves.
"freedom from", you will not be given a prevention from some horrible disease. You can buy it if you can afford it, but a significant portion of the population can't, and some of them will not be able to enjoy life because of it.
"freedom to", a prevention will be provided. You can always decide to take alternatives, if you can afford it. A significant portion of the population can't. They will be able to enjoy life.
Equating freedom with the liberties the rich have is absurd. In any society, the rich will have the most freedom, even in the most oppressive ones. The true litmus test for freedom is seeing the freedoms the poor can enjoy. By that standard, the US doesn't score very well.
How free a country is can be determined by this question.
Would you choose to be a randomly chosen citizen? You could be anyone in that country with all the rights, privileges - or lack thereof - that that random person has.
I think I'd rather be a random Canadian with healthcare and education than a random American.
It's an interesting thought experiment.
6 replies →
As a European who has lived in both countries I can only laugh at this. From our perspective, US and Canada are 99% identical, culturally.
It doesn't appear to be that way. If that 1% difference lies in how each country _fundamentally_ defines freedom, then I’d argue that’s more than enough to say Americans and Canadians are not alike. When the core values differ at such a foundational level, the rest of the cultural similarities become irrelevant.