Emily's view does represent an unfortunate trait of the Canadian character which she shares along with many Canadians and which no doubt contributed in part to Chretien's sad comment: smugness.

Because of our good fortune at being protected by the most benign foreign power in the history of this planet, Canada is sheltered from many evils. The funny thing is that we are self-satisfied by this state of affairs. We think we're so special and that this is all our own doing.

If only people good be like us, we keep telling ourselves, the world would be a better place.

The counterpart to the ugly American is the smug Canadian.

And is the greatest force for good that the world has ever known.

You forgot that part Emily.

Two points I like you to counter then.

1) The U.S Constitution enshrined the idea of state/church seperation into the western ethos. Would you not admit that this is an achievment for freedom that is unmatched in history by anything but the Magna Carta?

2) Since the Cold War was won, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. The is largely credited to U.S style capitalism in my mind. It has eased the suffering in places like China, India, and Brazil tremedously.

Your history of state church separation is faulty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-state_separat…

Secularism wasn't even a word, until 50 years after Jefferson coined the "wall of separation".

Neither the U.K, nor Canada separates church and state in their respective constitutions. If you think I'm wrong about that, then go find me the clause that says differently. It would save you some time to know that it doesn't exist.

So what say you? Is Thomas Jefferson a great man, and a hero for freedom? I won't be tossing out that baby, with the George W bathwater.

Is being a deist really a character flaw in your view? That's pretty intolerant IMO.

As to being a slave owing racist. That is a rather large character flaw, but understandable when you put it in the context of his times. Let's also not forget that Jeffersons words "All men are created equal" were to later give legal justification to the civil rights movement.

Lincoln was a notable racist as well, but that doesn't mean that he was not a great president, who fought for freedom.

If you judge historical figures based on todays morality, you are not going to find many good people at all. This does explain your bias towards Rome thou.

I think you are a little confused as far as how long the Roman empire lasted, but that's not suprising.

Putting deist and slave owner as two descriptions of Jeffereson is pretty clearly implying that deism is a strike against him, but whatever.

I sure glad that moral paragon Elizabeth I didn't own any slaves. Did she?

I find your anti-Americanism to be so selective, as to almost be at the point of racism. I'm happy to concede that America has had some detremental effects around the globe. You are not willing to concede even the most self-evident good in it.

I see my history lesson is not doing you much good. Being blinded by unreasoning hatred must suck..

Emily, I'm not the one who's trying to peddle that Jefferson had nothing to do with state/church separation, or that it doesn't even exist in the U.S constitution. You are demonstrably wrong on both counts.

That article I posted is not part of Hollywood propaganda, and it cleary shows Jefferson as the most fundamental figure in the history of state/church separation.

To show you why this bothers me let me give you a hypothetical>

You and I are debateing the civil rights movement, and I claim that MLK had little or nothing to do with it, only white guys like LBJ. You would be forgiven for thinking that I was biased against black people.

Replace civil rights with secularization, MLK with Jefferson, blacks with Americans; and then you have our little exchange in a nutshell. As I said, I really think your anti-Americanism is so deep that it is about as attractive as racism. It's close to the same thing in my book.

You are with fruitcakes like Glen Beck, and Sarah Palin when you claim that the U.S constitution does not separate church and state. I hope you enjoy being in that esteemed company, with your knowledge of American history.

Here's the proof, by Jeffersons own hand.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

That's pretty clear words about what the 1st ammendment is, from the guy who wrote it. I'm sure you and Beck have some evidence that will just blow this out of the water. Let's see it.

I have never seen anyone on the left argue that the 1st amendment does not separate church and state. That arguement is exclusive to the American religous right (and Canadian America haters apparently)

I don't understand why you'd think that, or why you'd want to win that arguement.

Since the Supreme Court of the U.S agrees with my (and Jeffersons) take on the first amendment, not yours (and Becks), it should still work out alright as to the U.S remaining a secular nation.

I suppose someone as bigotted towards the Yanks as you are, would consider them theocratic.

You don't hate America because of what they are, just your strawman version of them.

You are ignorant about the nature of the 1st amendment because you chose to be. I lead you right to the water of Jeffersons letter, and yet you still refuse to drink in any reality. Or offer any refutation except to read it.

If Jefferson didn't know what the first ammendment meant, then nobody does. He clearly outlines what it means in that letter.

You are wrong. There is no doubt about it.

AJR79, are you familiar with the word "Emilied"?

Yes, I'm a misogynist to boot.

Yes, in your response to him you implyed that I "attacked you" because you are a woman.

Pretty low blow, and untrue.

I am now.

Last try. If you are truly atheist, and value the heritage of the enlightenment, Jefferson should be one of your heros as well. Deists like he and Lincoln were the fruits of that tree.

There is no atheist that I have ever heard speak about the 1st ammendment the way you do. If you value church/state separation here an in the U.S, I would stop and think before spitting on it's champions.

Every atheist has (or should have) a deep respect for Jefferson. I have heard nothing but praise for him from prominant atheists.

Don't believe me? Here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqgX7CqeKoI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Z8XquDJT0&fe…

The man is a hero to atheists around the world, including me.

You are the only one I've ever met who would tarnish his legacy so. If I weren't atheist, I wouldn't have been nearly as upset that you did.

Any atheist that would argue against the clear intention of the 1st ammendment, to separate church and state is not very useful in a debate about religous freedom.

I'm inviting you to join with me in celebrating a hero for the secularist cause. You are handing back to me misconceptions about the founding of America, that are cooked up by religious theocrat types.

Whose side are you on?

"Hitchens is not an atheist"

Oh I get it now. You have no idea what an atheist is.

I'm sorry hon, but Hitchens is not an atheist.

'Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist and believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

An anti-theist is not an atheist, and neither are you by sound of it.

And I haven't the slightest interest in Jefferson…a diest American dead for 3 centuries, who isn't a hero to anyone but Americans.

It's also not a question of 'keeping' govt secular, it's a question of 'making' govt secular.

Look. Up. Chris. Hitchens.

Look. Up. Anti-Theist.

Since you've given up, you now have the time to do so.

They are quite different.

Now go back to playing with your blocks.

Especially the one between your ears.

Sure…yer a nutbar.

Go play.

Really? Well I'm sure you'd know all about gravity, being a lightweight and all.

No, it's because you're a human helium balloon.

LOL ahhh you love your backwards comments.

The 1st ammendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion, which prevents it from favouring one religion over another. You can trust my history on that over that of Glenn Beck. I think it's pretty shallow of you not to give Jefferson his just due, just because he's a Yank.

While you make a somewhat valid point that Elizabeth I did move forward religous freedom, but it never would have crossed her mind that church and state should be separate. Have you ever heard of the Church of England? That would not be allowed in the U.S.

"Canada and the U.K have followed the separation of chuch and state concept."

You are correct, and we "followed" the U.S example to get there. It's not honest to think otherwise

Not burning people at the stake, is a far cry from separating church and state. You can see the difference, right?

She was also the head of the Church. Chuch/State separation Fail.

Wrong yet again Emily. The Church of England was created by Henry VIII, who was Elizabeth Is father.

Is there anything that you do know?

Rome was largely a force for good in the world too. You don't think so?

I'll also add that they are far from perfect.

Jarrid said 'by the most benign foreign power in the history of this planet'.

A benign foreign policy does not stem from a 'weak character', and no one elected the US the world morality police.

LOL anything to take a shot at Chretien eh?

Well the whole world knows that.

You're waaaay too late to the party.

Well, I think "soft power" is along the lines of "moral suasion" in Canada's case, and you're right, it can be the strongest power of all…IF the individual or society involved accepts the moral values underpinning ones argument.. However, if they don't…

Perhaps I'm too much a "relativist", but I can't and won't assume that MY (or Canada's) moral values can or will necessarily resonate with other individuals or societies, especially in instances where the cultural, political, and economic background mitigate against adopting my "favoured" values.

WRT "leadership", yes, we have provided it, but have we ever really done so in the face of serious opposition from our colonial "sponsors"? I would suggest that we have, on several memorable occaisions to be sure, been "allowed" to assume the leadership on various issues.

I suspect appeals to "reason" are also culturally determined. Have you read "Voltaire's Bastards"? John Raulston Saul makes a pretty good argument along this line. And I think that what may seem "reasonable" to us in a wealthy, even complacent society may not resonate with those who live in societies where basic survival is a daily struggle.

No, peace-keeping has NOT ever been a favourite of the UK or the US, but both have been hegemonic powers whose interests lie, and lay, in maintaining the status quo that favours them. Canada's role in peace-keeping has not constituted a major impediment to this, and because Canada is really NOT a world power that represents a "challenge" to their dominant position, they've "allowed", or at least tolerated it.. I think that Canada's "reasonableness" has often cast us in the postion of the "good cop", and may even have been endorsed, or even sponsored, by progressive elements in the contempraneous hegemonic power.

By and large, Emily, the peace keeping missions have been Pearson's dream and the Forces nightmare. Poor terms of reference. Structurally useless because of the necessary approval of the "peace keeped" Only get approved if none of the security council disagree. And so on and so on. Pearson's useless little show. having spent sopme time at it onece upon a time I get sick of the Lefts'barfing on about Canada's wonderfujl role in peacekeeping. An underequipped force stuck in the middle of two second rate parties who don't give a s**t if anyone is hurt. It was the only thing the Canadians couold do at the time -poorly equipped with crapped out equipment because of Trudeau and Chretien's starving the Forces. Our refusal to go into Iraq was the one time that Chretien showed some common sense. .