How did the religious right gain so much power here but not in Europe?

[fujiyama]

In some ways I suppose it goes back to the puritanic foundations of this country...but does it go deeper? The country was founded by WASPs, but the founding fathers were not fundamentalists in any sense. They were deists and succeeded in creating a constitution which respected and allowed the practice of all religions.

As I understand it many European nations have a state church (like England for example), but how come their churches didn't drift toward the same fundamentalism they did here in the US? I've heard for example how the church of England never had any problems with Darwin's teaching and I think Darwin was Christian.

I also understand France has its own history with the Catholic church and with the French revolution...

Still why were the paths so divergent? Or do you think it has less to do with the foundations of the country than modern politics in general (late '70s Reagan/moral majority)?

[MsTryska]

1. Because Europe's history

beats us out by several thousand years....they've already gone through their pain with the religious right, and imo, religion is dead in many european countries.

[fujiyama]

2. That's very true

The church going rates in Europe are very low...10% and less in many countries.

[TyeDye75]

3. and theyre all the better for it IMHO

[China_cat]

8. Yes, when they went through their

fundie problems, they shipped them to the new world. (Well, actually to Holland first, where the tolerant Dutch wouldn't put up with their crap either) The 'pilgrims' didn't come here to escape religious persecution. They came here because they weren't allowed to take over the governments of Europe and establish theocracies there. They believed they'd be able to here. They still believe they'll be able to here.

Where do we ship our fundies to? Mars? Would that really be far enough?

[Cleita]

73. This is the problem. We can't keep shipping people off

that we disagree with as tempting as it is. I think we need to ship our Constitution though through the court system and start prosecuting any of these organizations that are forgetting the line between Church and State. No, this isn't religious prosecution but putting up people on trial who break the law. As long as they don't bring religion into our politics, then they should be free to practice what they like as long as they aren't committing any other crimes or trespassing on the rights of those who disagree with them.

However, just in recent years we have seen Creatonism introduced into science classes, ten commandment monuments in courthouses, naked statues covered up in our Hall of Justice, overriding medical professionals with a right to life feeding tube issue, recently played out to ad nauseum, and religious programming presented as news.

To make sure these people stay in church, there really should be a law revoking their tax free status, if they ever meddle in the affairs of state like all of the above. This is why they need to be taken to court. If they have any legitimate concerns that they are being prosecuted, then they should be bring it up with the ACLU.

[Pockets]

110. We can if we keep shipping people in.

We keep shipping people in from 3rd world countries who have not experienced the pain of religious fundamentalism, and compared to their prior governments, they think it's their savior, like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

[devinsgram]

31. Yes, I believe it was called

"The Crusades", which recently the recently deceased Pope apologized for.

My history professor just recently told us a story about going to England to give a paper. The lady that ran the inn, where he stayed, asked him what he was doing in England. He told her he was there to give a paper on American history. She began to laugh and he asked
her what was so funny. She said, "American history, what history, your country is not that old. In a thousand years or so, then you will have history lke we do."

She continued to laugh as she walked away.

[MsTryska]

59. Not just the crusades....

or even the Inquisition - don't forget Oliver Cromwell in Britain.

here's an article which shows what i think are some parallels to what we're dealing with today:

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon48.html

"With the death of the ancient constitution and Parliament in control, attention was turned to crushing rebellions in the realm, as well as in Ireland and Scotland. Cromwell forced submission from the nobility, muzzled the press and defeated Leveller rebels in Burford. Annihilating the more radical elements of revolution resulted in political conservatism , which eventually led to the restoration of the monarchy. "

[Pockets]

107. They've been there, done that.

It it my understanding that most European countries already have been assulted by right wing fundamentalist fascist-type leaders, ousted them, and now have matured.

[mopaul]

4. we've come full circle in our escape from religious persecution

those grade school history books always harped about the puritans and pilgrims fleeing to the new world to escape religious oppression.

now look at us.

[smoogatz]

5. The power of the religious right in the US is exaggerated

way out of proportion, considering that fundies make up a relatively small percentage of the population. I think the current wave of fundie hysteria goes straight to the spurious "22 percent moral values" vote in the '05 election--a number the corporate media took entirely at face value because Kkkarl Rove told them to. They're the same lunatic fringe they always were--but witless and/or pandering politicians are suddenly taking them seriously because they think it's in their electoral interests to do so. I think the vast majority of Americans are finally realizing what can happen when fundies try to flex their political muscle, and they don't like it one little bit.

[Quixote1818]

23. But they still fuck up all kinds of things!!!!!!

They have stopped Gay Marriage, hindered Stem Cell research tremendously, helped elect Bush!!! They prevent Evolution from being taught in many schools, they hinder the teaching of safe sex, they spread misinformation about all kinds of things! They SUCK!!!!

[checks-n-balances]

24. We should NEVER underestimate them no matter what their numbers are

Speaking about the general population, that may be true, but we've never seen so many of their likes in the executive branch and the legislative branch before. True, outside of those two places maybe it's just that a few who scream the loudest and have the most outlandish rhetoric get a lot of publicity, even though they're not the majority in numbers. But we've got a fundamentalist in the White House now with lots of buddies in Congress now.

These are people who generally refuse to compromise, believe they are doing God's will, and have a fanatical following - so they bear close monitoring.

[gumby]

38. The power of the religious right is underestimated.

They took over the Republic Party and now that party rules a One Party State which is bordering on totalitarianism with a fascist flavor. They run the House, Senate, White House, Judiciary and the media.

They just had a conference where they declared war, and even death, on judges. Dana Milbank writes, "This was no collection of fringe characters.." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html

The Yurica Report has some good information http://www.yuricareport.com/ This one is a 'must read' http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[BillZBubb]

40. Wrong. The power of the religious right is too easily dismissed.

You have to understand the concept of Banzhaf indexes to know how significant the religious right is to American politics. Banzhaf's original work dealt with the electoral college. But, his concept can be applied to voting blocs of all sorts.

The bottom line is that a totally monolithic group does not have to be close to a majority in numbers to become decisive or dominant. They only have to take advantages of weaknesses in the larger blocs. That's what the religious right does well. That's why they now have major pull in the party the controls all levels of the US government.

[smoogatz]

46. My point was that their influence is real and problematic

but way out of proportion to their numbers. I think Bush is a fundie to the extent that Rove tells him to be. Rove and the other PNAC far right radicals are using the religious nuts to advance their agenda, and vice versa. It's a marriage of convenience, and will only last as long as both sides continue to get what they want. I think the Schiavo fiasco demonstrates that there are major cracks beneath the surface of the fundie/PNAC coalition. Most Americans don't know much about PNAC, but they've seen the fundie routine before and they know it stinks. Whether that matters or not in the era of cooked elections is another question.

[GOPBasher]

117. I hope you're right. I don't know, though.

It doesn't seem like you're right. I've seen polls that show that almost half of the population is "evangelical." Now, I know many evangelicals are not right wing nutcases, but most are. Bush got almost 80% of the white evangelical vote.

[pnorman]

6. This Nation had, for various reasons, so much leeway to make WRONG moves

and seemingly able to get away with it. Imagine yourself snapping a shoelace (damnit!), and then imagine that happening to an old woman living in the streets. She'd certainly be a lot less careless in lacing her shoes than most of us. Also, "history" (SERIOUS history) is almost despised here. Other nations don't have that luxury.

Having said that, it doesn't quite explain why Canada or Australia are comparatively free of such noxious doctrines.

pnorman

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. Because Canada and Australia are still part of the British Commonwealth

and therefore are more like England than the States in some ways?

[suegeo]

7. Don't they own the voting machine companies?

It doesn't matter who votes, it's who counts the votes that matters.

[mmonk]

9. Europe has already gone through this

and thus is more evolved and modern.

[DemExpat]

10. Centuries of religious wars.....

and this is why many Europeans are not thrilled with the religious conservatism moving into Europe via the Islamic faith.

DemEx

[applegrove]

11. Because kids in American schools have always been taught the

creation myths about America. And American adults have kept ahold of those stories about America being a special place. And those who do not get the chance to move abroad or travel.. those who do not get their information from sources outside.. they believe the hype. They don't get a chance to question it. And they share that myth with those around them. And such shared myths are the same thing as religion.

(a myth can be true or not true - does not matter in this case)

[Bryn]

12. Too Much TV Preaching by Fundies

People need to stop supporting those TV preachers so they can go off the air!

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. And those preachers and their churches

need to start paying taxes.

[Wright Patman]

13. It was seemingly in the DNA

of a lot of the early settlers to believe that America was the "shining city on the hill" spoken of in, IIRC, Pilgrim's Progress. The Scots-Irish who settled the South and are still the dominant culture here began as Presbyterians by and large, but have now morphed into Baptists for the most part. I would say "militarism" trumps either as the actual religion of these folk. Fighting and bloodshed is also in their DNA. The Confederate States of America were a "lost cause" from the beginning and yet the CSA came dangerously close to winning that war.

The militarism also discourages freethinking, even if their minds were capable of free thought. The military is all about taking orders and obeying authority. If you go to a church down here, you will invariably hear the pastor refer to the "war" all Christians face each day. There is not much about the Prince of Peace. It evokes cognitive dissonance. The pastor is much more likely to quote "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."

Many 1700s-era emigrants to the New World thought of America as the new Israel. Some thought they were descended from the lost tribes of Israel and that Americans (white ones, anyhow) were of the tribe of Manasseh and Brits were of the tribe of Ephraim.

Not all the founders were deists or agnostics. John Adams and George Washington come to mind in opposition to this theory. Jefferson, my favorite, indeed was. He didn't denigrate Jesus Christ, but he did put out his own edition of the Bible in which all references to miracles of Jesus or anyone else were excised. He was an Enlightenment philosopher. That may be why he was so fond of France.

I really cannot imagine Texas in particular or the American South in general ever being anything but a fundy-dominated place. It doesn't really mean they live their lives in a more righteous or pure manner than anyone else (quite the contrary, in many cases), but the militarism of Southern-style evangelicalism means they will always be "at war" with somebody or something, be it over the culture or over oil in the Middle East. While they kill you either symbolically or actually, they will also say how much they "love" you. They will call it "tough love."

I heard the phrase "secular humanism" repeated over and over in my youth as the chief danger to God's will as they interpret scripture. Europe has been a secular humanist place for a long, long time. To churchgoers around here, this concept is "of the devil" and "straight out of the pit of hell."

But despite their unprecedented power, fundamentalists still see themselves as a persecuted minority, waging a holy war against the godless forces of secularism. To rouse themselves, they kick off the festivities with "Soldiers of the Cross, Arise," the bloodthirstiest tune in all of Christendom: "Seize your armor, gird it on/Now the battle will be won/Soon, your enemies all slain/Crowns of glory you shall gain."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?rnd=1113062695995&has-player=true&version=6.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Not all of Texas is as inbred as the Eastern section...

What about the indigenous people--not all gone yet... What about the Spanish (later Mexicans)--the earliest European setters? The Germans & other Central European settlers included Catholics & agnostic intellectuals, along with several types of Protestant. What about the African-Americans? And what about the numerous groups from all over the world who continue to settle our big cities?

Break your engagement to your first cousin--even if that is a century-long tradition in your family. Move to Austin or San Antonio or even Big Houston & learn that there's more to Texas--& the South--than one historian's opinion. (Yes,I heard about that book.)

The current gang politicizing religion may have historical roots. But they also are part of a recent movement that can & should be opposed.

[Wright Patman]

45. Look at the election returns of this state

over the last 12 years and tell me the culture of the South does not dominate the politics of Texas. This is true from the Panhandle almost all the way to the Rio Grande Valley. It is not true of the central cities, but that almost doesn't matter because all of the suburban counties ringing them vote GOP in even higher percentages than we here in the "ig'nernt belt" do.

I have two degrees from UT so I am a former Austinite. I am glad I lived there when I did. It's too damned big now. Someday you may need to take refuge in the countryside at the rate things are going, so be nice. ;)

[DrDebug]

14. Europe has a lot of problems with the extreme right

It is not the religious right, but the extreme right like Le Penn (who came close to becoming the president of France with 17% of the votes, remember?) and other debious brown shirt which are very similar except that they don't use religion, but their ideas are the same.

[radwriter0555]

15. europeans aren't teevee addicts.

Simple as that. Americans rely on the idiots on teevee to dictate their every move and whim; when you're that gullible, you can be sold ANY bill of goods.

[readmylips]

16. US Religion is pure Capitalism $$$$$

Religious evangelicals are new 19th century movements based on making money. Anybody can claim to be a Christian, especially if they have a smooth speaking tongue and a domineer personality. That's why all those evangelicals shout, scream and move about like those phony wrestlers. It's all about milking the public by arousing the public's guilt and emotions. They should all be placed in jail.

The US government helps the evangelicals by keeping poor people uneducated. Poor people have nothing to cling to but lies and superstitions.

[K-W]

17. Because Europe sent the religious fundies to America.

America was a release valve for european religious sects that nobody wanted around.

[K-W]

20. Plus the nature of religion in the south and midwest

with a long history of isolated towns and a network of traveling religious leaders creating the perfect enviroment for extremists and charlatans.

[kodi]

26. usually, smart europeans stayed in europe, only the dregs headed west

if you could make it in europe you stayed there, if you couldn't, you headed to the new world.

the only time the americas got europe's best was when hitler's gang roamed free and their targets feared for their lives and came over the waters.

[American Tragedy]

97. So, we're genetically inferior. This angle seems eerily familiar...

[Pockets]

115. Proof?

To say U.S. immigrants were less intelligent would require proof of IQ tests and the like, which probably are not on record.

They probably were less successful, but that does not reflect on intelligence. Many instances of success without intelligence can be drawn.

In fact many people with higher IQs tend to be underachievers, but their human instinct for curiosity, a sign of intellect, probably helped drive them here too.

[American Tragedy]

116. I assume you meant to reply to the preceding post

since I obviously feel the same way. I am extremely uncomfortable with any implication that entire races or nationalities are somehow more intelligent. Not because of political correctness, but because I've been a student of psychology for years and attempts to assert the Bell Curve view of human potential have proven scientifically unsound and virtually impossible to measure.

Incidentally, my immigrant ancestors were not "dregs", as the poster disgustingly characterizes them. They weren't dregs even if one operates on the naive idea that success is consistently a reflection of individual merit and intellect. That was certainly not true centuries ago in Europe, and it's often not the case even in contemporary capitalist systems; just look at the majority of people with wealth and power today. Are they typically the best that humankind has to offer, by any serious measure?

[Onlooker]

19. Because no one takes them on

The religious right is so powerful because Democrats, liberals, and other progressives too often are afraid to challenge religion. Even on this board if you begin to raise issues regarding faith and bigotry, selfishness, sexism, or homophobia, people come down on you, including the moderators.

Religion belongs in the church or the home. Anywhere else and it too often becomes the enemy of human rights.

[JI7]

21. WWII was in Europe

as was WWI.

[bush_is_wacko]

22. The European "media" is allowed to run with just about any

half baked theory they want to run with! THAT is the main difference between them and us. ALL of their papers are like tabloids. Europeans are basically left to themselves to find the TRUTH in all of it. I guess I'm torn between the publics right to know and the printing of "factual" information but it seems to me the European system uncovers a WHOLE lot more facts by letting it's press run with whatever they've got. I will say some of the more controversial stories they run with tend to be denied as conspiracy theories by the other side fairly quickly, but they are still allowed to run with them in most cases.

As far as religion goes European Kings and Queens were the driving force behind creating religions that allowed them more freedom than the Catholic religion did. When they wanted a special dispensation for themselves and the Catholic church stood firm they just created another religion that gave them those freedoms.

However, I will tell you you'd be sorely mistaken to believe there isn't a class of privilege in those countries! From what I can tell you don't get anywhere in those countries without a pedigree. You may reach a glass ceiling of middle management but you are NOT likely to EVER go any further than that.

[forgethell]

28. The US

press is "allowed" to run with any half-baked theory they want to. Something about the 1st Amendment, maybe??

[bush_is_wacko]

30. The US press is NOT allowed to print any half baked theory they come up wi

That was my point. They are subject to lawsuits AND character assasinations at every turn. I will re-read my post, maybe I didn't word it correctly. I don't beleive our press has "freedom" the way the European press does was my meaning. Sorry if I screwed that up!

[forgethell]

33. Character assassination?

Well, if the European press is some damn 'free', what is to prevent them for character assassinating each other? what exactly are you talking about?

Lawsuits? I don't know about all of Europe, but Britain, for example, has much stricter libel laws than we do. If you attack someone, you'd better be telling the truth, and have proof. It's politicians, celebrities, and the ordinary joe citizen in America that is subject to 'character assassination', not really the media.

Oh, you're talking about the bloggers?? Silly me. Yep, better shut down that nasty Internet. I'm going to miss DU.

We have MORE freedom than the European press, if anything. Now, maybe we don't use it to the same extent. But that is a different kettle of fish entirely.

I would be interested in a more detailed explanation of your views???

[pretzel4gore]

34. you're right...the US media is ruthlessly controlled

mind you, this happened in the dark, in secret, and as part of the reaction to liberalism that has been festering since the civil war/new deal...theorectically, the press is freest in the world, but ...but....tim russert was born:crazy:

[bush_is_wacko]

57. I agree. At one time our media was quite free.

They are now however, subject to the whim of whoever owns the station they work for. Find the owners of the stations, look at their political leanings and wallah, you have what passes fro "the press" in the US.

Theoretically this country has a Constitution that gives power to the people to remove it's leaders from office when they get out of hand too. I don't see how it can be put to any practical use though when half of the US population is suffering from religious paranoia and voting in anyone who makes the claim they are a Christian. Anyone can make that claim and these delusional American's don't seem to have a clue that when it comes to politics MOST of them will claim whatever gets them votes.

[forgethell]

79. Well, that's the

way it should be. Whoever owns the press can use his freedom of it more or less like he likes. to force him to do otherwise is to violate his rights. That said, he's a business man and will put on th ekind of news reporting he thinks his audience wants, whether right or left.

However, it is not true that anybody can claim to be a Christian and get elected. Senator Kerry is a devout man, from what I've read, yet he is only a Senator. Despite what people think, it's the ideas and policies that conservatives vote for. Not the personalities, and not the religion. They'd vote for an atheist if they thought he'd install their policies.

[trebizond]

44. "All of their papers are like tabloids."

Ever read the UK Guardian or Independent?

Class privilege is a complex issue. In the UK it's open to exagerration but nonetheless very real. In Italy, for example, political affiliation is more of a factor. Ultimately, however, the biggest factor in opening doors is the same as it is in the US: money.

[bush_is_wacko]

50. Yes, Yes! it is a very complex issue in Europe.

I have many relatives and friends from over there. All the ones that have made it into higher level meetings (still not the highest level) have openly admitted that their pedigree's were part of the reason they got there. If a particular member of their business group didn't meet pedigree standards he/she was left to sit outside in the lobby!

As for the press over there. I believe the DO have more freedoms than we do. They are always printing stories that would only get printed in a rag here in the US. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure whether that creates a society that educates themselves more or one that believes everything they hear. Of the people I know who are from there I tend to go with the former though. Everybody I know know from European nations researches everything. They are never fully satisfied with just the paper or television version of anything. They are very bright and have lots of ideas that as an American I am hard pressed to see because of all the garbage I have to wade through to get there, you know?

[American Tragedy]

96. Wrong. The American press does have the necessary freedoms.

No one can seriously attribute their silence to external compulsion. No doubt that they lack the initiative and are motivated by money and the desire to entertain rather than inform. But in the end it's their responsibility, their moral failure. It's their fault!

If someone as powerless and weak as I am can confront Alberto Gonzales and ask him the obvious questions that have arisen, the so-called journalists can surely do the same. They have ample opportunities. Fuck them all.

[bush_is_wacko]

101. Oh, now I see where you are going with this. Yes, I agree they CAN buck

the system. I guess it is about how much they are willing to go through to do so, but you are absolutely right they CAN do it. It is very disappointing that there are no more journalists with the balls to stand up to the powers that be and say i will not allow my countrymen to suffer because of you anymore. In fact it is downright UN-American IMO. I have no clue why they decided, it seems, in mass to suddenly tow the line. Money is everything to a lot of people in this world sadly.

[forgethell]

25. The USA

gives freedom to all to practice their religion. No taxes are collected to support a "state church" as in some European countries. People are free to find a church where they feel comfortable. So they support said churches far more. Or don't go, as the mood takes them.

I think it is to the USA's crredit that our society can stand the strain of both seccularist fundamentalists and Christian ones, and others, in the same society. European societies are, in my opinion, far too brittle for this free-wheeling dynamic diversity that I love.

[trebizond]

42. Lack of diversity in Europe? Are you kidding me?

Even where there are established churches people are entirely "free to find a church where they feel comfortable". Take the UK: two established churches (both prety liberal), between them home to less than 60% of the population, and a whole spectrum of others similar to those in the USA. Yes, they even have some fundamentalist churches and groups, but few people seem to find them attractive. And as for "seccularist fundamentalists", they'll for the most part find life in Europe a heck of a lot amenable. Putting religion aside, just compare the composition of any European legislature to the US congress- when it comes to "free-wheeling dynamic diversity", they got us whipped there.

[forgethell]

47. We'll

have to disagree.

[mr blur]

48. What crap!

I don't see much freedom to believe anything much except the party line in your country. More likely to be because we in Europe don't blindly follow lunatics and we no longer accept that any god gave us the right to rule/dominate the world. Anyone here who stated that this was God's Own Country or that they believed that god wanted them to be leader and attack other nations would be laughed out of office and offered medication - not blindly followed by millions who think that the earth is 6,000 years old or that schoolchildren should be forced to pray in school or that homosexual people should be rounded up and put in camps.

In a national sense religion just isn't so important here in the UK. It's either seen as a personal thing or..just not of much importance at all. Mostly people tend to believe what they want and go to the church they wish to attend on Sunday and then get on with their lives the rest of the time.

It sems to me that your society is having great problems trying to "stand the strain of both seccularist fundamentalists and Christian ones, and others, in the same society". Of course we have religious loonies over here too, it's just that no-one takes them seriously or allows them to control the country.

[forgethell]

52. Thank you.

I am always happy to accept instruction by my betters in Europe. I hear there's a big rise in ethnic tension in Europe nowadays as you strive to make one country out of many and assimilate immigrants from 3rd world countries. One task the US accomplished in the eighteenth century. The other it continues to do more successfully than any other country in the world.

[smoogatz]

55. Somebody's Proud to be A Murkan.

And as is usually the case, also proud to forget about the fact that without 10,000,000 imported African slaves and 12,000,000 dead indigenous people the US wouldn't have accomplished squat in the 18th century.

[forgethell]

63. Name a country without faults.

Germany? Ha, ha. France and Belgium have somewhat sordid colonial pasts. Africa. Almost every country on that sad continent is a basket case.

Yep, it was all those dead Native Americans, and African slaves that built the industrial structure of the Northeast. Those savage European settlers destroyed wonderful, peaceful, powerful civilizations which had terrific health care for everyone, even if it was chanting over their comatose bodies. And ate each other, in many cases.

We've all got faults, but most of those of America were inherited from Europe, which has not outgrown them, yet, for all their smug, arrogant self-righteousness.

Learn to spell 'American'. Ignorance is never becoming.

[smoogatz]

69. Finland.

But that's beside the point. You held up America's assimilative powers as a model for the world to emulate. I pointed out that we "assimilated" 22,000,000 people by killing and/or enslaving them. To which you have no answer, except "everybody does it"--which, of course, is what an eight-year-old would say. Fact is, our history is right up there with the most sordid and blood-soaked of any nation on the planet--it's nothing to be proud of.

On edit: you seem to be implying that all those Native Americans deserved to die. Care to take a few potshots at African culture, while you're at it?

[forgethell]

81. You know,

we didn't spring full grown as a culture like Athena from the head of Zeus. Sure, we made mistakes. We still make them. But we improve all the time. Mankind is not kind, gentle, and peaceful by nature. There is no such think as 'the noble savage'. Children have to be acculturated to be less selfish, and violent.

And mankind had to develop civilization. civilizations had to develop kinder mores. We don't crucify people anymore. We don't hang people for theft, or even rape, anymore. So I feel no particular guilt about what happened 100-200-300 years ago.

I implied nothing about the Native Americans deserved to die. Just that some of their cultural practices had to go. So do some of ours.

I just love the way that people who have no argument to make are so quick to throw a charge of 'racism' around.

[smoogatz]

84. Here's what you said:

"Those savage European settlers destroyed wonderful, peaceful, powerful civilizations which had terrific health care for everyone, even if it was chanting over their comatose bodies. And ate each other, in many cases."

You meant it ironically. You meant that highly civilized Europeans destroyed Native American cultures that were horrible, warlike, weak, savage and cannibalistic--with terrible health care (not sure where you're going there, but at this point, whatever). I'm 1/8 Cherokee, and yeah, that sounds pretty racist to me. And I think I've made my argument pretty clear. What was yours again? Europeans should shut up because America rocks? Is that it?

[forgethell]

92. Actually,

I was being more sarcastic than ironic, I thought. All I'm saying is that other countries and civilizations have enough beams in their own eyes than they should be careful about complaining about whatever is in America's eyes. We are all human, we all have bad tendencies and Good one. But America is not the source of all evil in the world.

As I said, when the logic runs out, shout 'racism'. No Europeans don't have to shut up. But they should be able to take it if they want to dish it out. America is a pretty good country, and negative general characterizations about them are as racist and bigoted as they are about anybody else.

[femme.democratique]

70. Um, canada? eom

[forgethell]

82. No, I don;t think so.

eom

[mr blur]

72. I suggest you read #60,

and be happy to accept instruction from someone who I think isn't in Europe.
America is an adolescent country - it has much to learn. So do you. I fail to see what America does more successfully than any other country in the world. Well, perhaps, arrogance, intolerance, war, torture, repression, oppression, bogotry, religious lunacy, crap television, atrocious food,...

[forgethell]

85. I read # 60

I disagree, entirely.

As for your own post, certainly America has no monopoly on any of those qualities, except it does fight a war far better than anybody else. No question about that.

Can you seriously suggest that we are more bigoted, intolerant, and have more religious lunacy than practically the entire Arab world? That we are more arrogant than the fucking French?

As for crap TV and atrocious food. Those are matters of taste, not really a valid political argument.

Besides, if you don't like American food, well crap, how seriously can anyone take any argument you make? Barbecue, pies of all sorts, prime beef, a fantastic variety of seafood, regional varieties of cooking of stunning magnificence. And served to you by wait-person of the non-snooty, non-obnoxious variety.

We all, by the way, have a lot to learn. something you should realize yourself. But I haven't read anything on this thread I haven't read before.

[American Tragedy]

95. If I were British I'd hesitate to criticize another nation's local cuisine

though I question whether America even has much of a native cuisine to speak of anyway.

To be fair, not only Britain, but in my experience most of Northern Europe has produced miserably bland food, and our ancestors do seem to have overwhelmingly carried that dubious taste to America. That's my assumption, anyway. I believe my great-grandparents were fond of some appalling dish with cold herring literally soaking in mayonnaise.

[donco6]

76. Yes.

"Anyone here who stated that this (Europe) was God's Own Country or that they believed that god wanted them to be leader and attack other nations would be laughed out of office and offered medication - not blindly followed by millions who think that the earth is 6,000 years old or that schoolchildren should be forced to pray in school or that homosexual people should be rounded up and put in camps."

It's true and well put. There's some delusion in our water, to which Europeans are immune.

[tenshi816]

104. Mr. Blur, I completely agree with you...

...and I'd like to stick my $.02 in if I may, because I have some experience of religion on both sides of the pond.

I grew up in Georgia but I became a permanent resident in the UK in 1986. I've attended churches in both countries and have found them vastly different.

I'm a Catholic and over the years have found that I attend church much more frequently now than I did when I still lived in the States. Why? Because I've found that the attitudes of both the priests and parishioners I've known here in England over the last 19 years - in more than one parish - are much different than their American counterparts. There seems to me (and of course I can only speak of my own experiences) to be a lot more emphasis on love and compassion and a lot less on guilt, finger-pointing and negativity. Also, as you say Mr. Blur, it's a personal thing - I've known some very, very religious people in the UK, but they manifest it in the way they live their lives and treat other people, not by being publicly holier-than-thou.

I also find myself wondering, if this might not also the case with Baptists in Britain because of something I observed about 10 years ago. Before telling my little anecdote, I have to fill in some of my own family background: Many years ago my stepmother became a fundie and pretty much dragged my dad along with her (although he's not particularly right-wing, he just does what he must to keep some peace in their household). My stepmother eats, sleeps and breathes church but has become the most dour, unhappy, purely miserable individual I've ever known (although she wasn't before her conversion - she used to be of a sunny disposition). Now she's judgemental of everyone who crosses her path, and completely intolerant - yet professes to be a sincere Christian.

Anyway, long story short, about 10 years ago my dad and stepmother came to visit me in England and while they were here, they wished to attend church. They went to both Anglican and Catholic services, which left my stepmother unimpressed (because of the lack of fire and brimstone), and then they went to the local Baptist church because they're Baptists. Believe it or not, my stepmother came away from that English Baptist church service extremely disappointed and unhappy because there wasn't any emphasis in the sermon on making people feel like they were going to hell! My stepmother, and people like her, don't enjoy going to church unless it makes them feel that people - lots of people - are going to be punished for not living and believing as they feel they should. To the fundies, it's not about God's grace, it's the righteous retribution, stupid. I know that there are many, many religious people who don't fall into the wingnut category. Unfortunately for me, prior to moving to the UK, I had a lot of experience with the fundie types.

My take on it (and again, this is solely based on my own experiences over the years), is that the Christian religion here is something that gives people comfort, but isn't something that causes people to set themselves apart from or against each other, and it certainly doesn't have a high profile politically. I simply can't imagine it really being an issue.

[smoogatz]

56. What's a "seccularist fundamentalist"?

It's not only misspelled, it's a contradiction in terms.

[forgethell]

64. Well, I

can agree that I mis-typed it. But it is not a contradiction in terms. It is a secularist who holds his belief system as fanatically and unthinkingly as a religious fundamentalist does.

Not just that he disagrees with the opposition, but that he doesn't even think the opposition has a place at the table.

[smoogatz]

65. So let me get this straight--

a secularist is somebody who believes in separation of church and state, I guess. And a fundamentalist separatist is somebody who believes, as Jefferson did, in absolute separation of church and state. Is that what you're saying?

[forgethell]

67. No.

Your definition of a secularist is much too narrow.

However, let's accept it as a working definition, just for the sake of argument, and only for this one post.

A secular fundamentalist would be one who feels, I cannot say 'thinks', that religious views on moral or social issues cannot be allowed to influence the political debate, even if they are framed in secular terms. One that has a pre-determined position and rejects all contrary views, that may, possibly have an analogue in a religious perspective.

[smoogatz]

71. Got an example?

It's all getting a little abstract for me.

[forgethell]

77. Well, just

about everything in the entire cultural wars. We don't complain much about churches in politics when they're on our side, for example, the civil rights struggle. But there are secular arguments to be made and religious ones, on both sides. And they were used by both sides. I choose that particular example because it is one that has been won.

But abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and a host of others have secular arguments to be made against them as well as religious ones for them. As I said, I don't notice us rejecting the religious when they are on our side.

And why should we? Only so we won't be hypocritical, the worst thing you can possibly be.

[smoogatz]

83. Insofar as religion can be used to advance the cause of freedom,

justice and human dignity, I'm all for it. When religion is used to advance the cause of fascism, racism, and other forms of oppression, I'm against it. Does that make me a hypocrite?

[forgethell]

93. Only if

you use it to advance your own cause, and refuse them the right to do likewise.

[American Tragedy]

91. I'd go further than that if we're speaking in terms of the political arena

I only consider personal beliefs to be particularly relevant when someone wants to impose that worldview through force of law and oppress others who don't accept it. With that in mind, I would think that a 'secular fundamentalist' is someone who believes that the establishment should actively banish religion in every aspect of public life, like the Soviets or Vietnamese.

Ironically, although their political aim seems diametrically opposed to the compulsions of their religious counterparts, they are both inherently authoritarian and both reject individual freedom of conscience. I hate them both.

[forgethell]

94. I wish I'd said that that way n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

111. It's one of these. Dangerous critters, they are.

Especially if you are a crow.

[fujiyama]

102. wtf

is a secular fundamentalist?

That's a RW term I've heard tossed around before, usually to insinuate the idea that Christians are "persecuted".

Sorry, there is no comparison. The religious rightwing fundamentalists are not on the same level as us secularists. No secular person I know wants his or her beliefs imposed on anyone. They just don't want to have Christian beliefs imposed on them. Contrary to what the RR would have everyone believe, the left is NOT in favor of restricting the freedom to practice religion.

For example, take this "intelligent design" bullsit. No secular person is saying churches and private religious institutions shouldn't be allowed to teach this nonsense, but the church should not be allowed to teach its beliefs in a public school setting.

I find it ironic though that while our constitution did forbid the establishment of a state religion (a positive development) ultimately religious institutions here have much more power here than they do anywhere other than the Islamic world.

The extent to which religion plays a role in our political system is troubling. Both have their own spheres and religion should be a private thing. That's the difference between here and Europe - not necessarily that they are any more restricted in practicing their faith.

[forgethell]

106. The reason that

religious people have so much power here is that there are so many of them. Their votes are as valid as anybody's.

[ray of light]

27. really cool site to find religious and politics discussion on Sunday

There is a weekly Sunday discussion on religion and politics at http://www.democracycellproject.net


The discussion on religion is only one aspect of it. They are working on educating people, activating grassroots, and empowering us. All of us need to work together to take back our country from the neoCONs and the religious zeolots.

[ray of light]

43. Keep checking that link...they must be getting to it soon.

I don't know when they put it up there. But it's not there yet. I guess keep checking back.


http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/

[minerva50]

29. We have a "free market" in religions

I forget who's article I read on the subject, so I can't give the credit where it is due, but the contention was that the fact that we don't have an established church has given life to churches and church-going. Anyone is free to set up a pulpit and attract congregants, this has allowed many flowers to bloom and attracted many more people to churches, rather than boring everyone with the same old state religion. The thrust of the fundies to establish their brand of Christianity as our established religion would kill the system that has given them life.

[MollyStark]

32. This is one of the few informed opinions on this thread. Thank you.

It is also because they have spent 30 years becoming active in government and getting elected to office. The solution is not to try to squelch religion but for the rest of us to get involved in government and drown them out.

[donco6]

36. "Flowers to bloom?"

I would have phrased it "spores to multiply" myself.

[Lilith Velkor]

88. Shroooooms, maaan!

:crazy:

[donco6]

89. Even those have their positive aspect.

Unlike fundamentalists.

[Lilith Velkor]

90. I've met a few OK fundies.

That is, ones that were cool with me being a tokin' bisexual pagan anarchist. They tried to understand where I was coming from without judging.

The ones who actually bother to read the bible and take it seriously are alright. The other 98% are shitstains.

[Malikshah]

35. Recent history tells all

As mentioned by others in this thread--

Europe went through the Reformation...the 30 yrs war alone should have been enough to show the insanity of religiosity trumping all

WWI and WWII-- moreso WWII showed the evils of ideologies guiding folks.

US hasn't been through that.

We're damn near close, but not yet.

Their power is NOT exagerrated in this country.

THe old adage- regarding Satan's victory being that he got people to believe he didn't exist is quite apt here.

Intelligent Design
The Great Commission
Mrs Smith, a believer, weeps at popes funeral (a caption to a photo from yesterday)-- "a believer"??? WTF is that all about.

Be careful for the war folks.

[Igel]

39. One other point (of view)

The religions in Europe are "corporate", in the sense that there are a very few large churches that people belong to. Given the class structure, you wound up with the rulers and the church hierarchy being on one side, and the common folk having little say in how the government and church were run. Both were run centrally, and people were more reliant on government and the church hierarchy. The king was "father" and the church "mother" for centuries, one providing temporal goods, the other spiritual goods.

Fastforward a couple of hundred years, as secular education peeled the devout from the church: the government was liberalized, but the church wasn't, at least not to the same extent. Activists tended not to be religious, but secular. And the "king", become government, stayed 'father'.

Compare the US: churches and government tended to be local; distances were large, so autonomy was greater, centralization more difficult (the state enabled ecclesiastical centralization in Russia). Neither church nor state were parent. Activists to be busy both in government and the church (and in things like the 4-H and grange movements). And they stayed largely separate, even through the second Great Awakening.

But at the same time, people brought their own values and judgments to government. The relative conservativism and self-reliance of Americans made for more conservativism and a preference for less reliance on government. As society's views changed, the government changed. It was gradual. The "religious right" had bailed out of politics at some point; many dissuaded their followers from voting; from my perspective, this means they dissuaded their followers from having elected official represent them and their values. At the same time, US culture said to respect academics and specialists; in the '50s and '60s, both sets were increasingly Democratic. FDR's ghost hovered over US politics. The conservative religious churches "woke up" and rejected their aversion to politics; soon thereafter, and tellingly, tax laws were altered to forbid churches from being partisan. FDR's ghost was largely banished by time. And the cult of science and academia fell into wide disfavor.

[BillZBubb]

41. The religious right RAN Europe for centuries.

Every European country has had long periods of their history under the thumb of religious zealots. So, the populations there are well aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing church to influence state. Our founders also knew this all too well.

The US on the other hand, has no historical experience with religious right-wing rule. Most of the sheeple know nothing of the European experience and are oblivious to the threat.

[pnorman]

49. Here's some more on this topic:

http://thestranger.com/2005-03-31/feature.html

pnorman

[DeepModem Mom]

51. Don't forget our press, and theirs. nt

[indepat]

53. Maybe Europeans have learned from our wisdom in separation of church

and state which has now been discarded by the neocons to pander to their fundamentalist base of religious zealots who want a theocracy even if totalitarian.

[NashVegas]

54. Well, There's Ireland

..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. I've heard that Ireland is rapidly secularizing

especially after the revelations of some of the scandals in the Catholic church.

[smoogatz]

58. Europeans are better educated.

Plain and simple. Our education system stinks, generally speaking, and one of the by-products of that great national failure is that ignorance and incompetence are now considered not just the norm, but preferable. We don't want politicians who are smarter than we are. American anti-intellectualism has been part of the psychic landscape here since the Great Awakening, but I don't think it's ever been more pronounced (or more destructive) than it is now.

[leftofthedial]

60. Murkans are insular and ignorant

Their world view is limited. They infrequently encounter anyone who is much different from themselves. Our culture values conformity over free thinking and shallow, short attention-span entertianment over intellectual enlightenment.

This has created an ignorant, intolerant populace, which is the fertile breeding ground of religion, esecially fundamentalist religion.

[donco6]

80. Our ignorance of world affairs is staggering.

It's never more obvious than when I travel to Germany. I get the international papers and they are seething with news about countries all over the world. In the US, we only see stories about car wrecks and celebrities. The only vaguely thoughtful section is the editorials, and those have to be "balanced" - i.e., half a page of factual comment, two and a half pages of unsubstantiated schlock.

[democracyindanger]

61. Europe had their religious wars centuries ago.

[Bluebear]

62. "Conservatives in most countries are wary of religious fanatics"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1714712

[pnorman]

66. I just spotted this on another DU thread:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?rnd=1113062695995&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.857

pnorman

[femme.democratique]

68. Because the religious right in europe ruled for 16,1700 years!

They (europe) lived through Attila the Hun among other ancient-day George W. Bush wannabes, through the Inquisition, Calvinism, and Oliver Cromwell and eventually progressed to where they are today. They have a cultural common consciousness that prevents the Religious Right from resurrecting in those countries.

We (USA) formed in the Age of Enlightenment, were graced by the presence of Deists like Jefferson, Franklin and Washington - aside from pre-revolutionary religious barbarism (witch trials, etc) we've had the best sociological experience in history (arguably). American have no negative cultural consciousness regarding religion, people do not understand the consequences and hence are doomed to regress.

[lala_rawraw]

74. You are confusing...

Religion with hard right politics, that is, the work of the many to benefit the few "entitled." Religion is simply a mask here paraded around as though any of these people actually believed in something of real value. The puppets running in the streets with signs are either entirely ignorant or very well paid. In either case, they are hardly the faces of religion.

Throughout history religion has been used as a cover for the other, less palpable agendas. Consider the Vatican and the Popes of the past who had wives, wealth, etc. Consider in all honesty if the church going Karl Rove actually for a moment believes in god and if he does, which version? Because Christianity is not it. Same is applicable to the hard right politics of the Likud party, which does not speak to my Jewish background on any level. Consider the German religious fabrication, at first (then they rounded up the Catholics anyway).

Now, as for the question you ask: the reason is simple.

The hard right was holding Europe hostage and then America incorporated the most vile of those hard righters into our very own political system, thereby contaminating it entirely. Also, Britain is on the same path of lunacy as is America. Russia is pushing for a dictatorship once again. So there are major hard right controls in Europe and in the middle-east, but the reason we see such a difference here is that we actually did manage a democracy for a bit, so the difference to us is startling.

[d_b]

75. Isolation.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

78. The Napoleonic Code - official separation of church and state

During the French Revolution, much of the vast landholdings of the Catholic Church was confiscated and sold off to finance the new revolutionary government. The official church was seen to have been in league with the oppressive nobility. When the Austrian and Prussian nobility invaded France to try to destroy the French revolution and restore the monarchy, it made the rise of Napoleon necessary. His code of laws expressly established the separation of church and state, unlike our own constitution where the separation is only implied by legal interpretation. It also guaranteed freedom from persecution for any sexual acts committed in privacy between consenting adults, and guaranteed as well religious freedoms for minority religions, including the Jews. The Napoleonic code was implemented in every place he conquered and, while it often didn't outlive his empire in many nations, it had a lasting effect on Europe in the minds of the people, in awakening them to the values of the revolution that the Code incarnated.

[BuyingThyme]

86. Money, money money; media, media, media; gov't, gov't, gov't.

Fundamentalism is money, media, and government. Fundamentalism is fascism.

The U.S. is probably subject to this form of fascism because we've never before experienced it.

[icymist]

87. I believe loneliness and creating a sense of community

has evolved (excuse the word) from an increasing mobile and isolating society. People moving with their jobs, or relocating away from dying towns, or moving away from family and friends for whatever reason become lonely and seek out companionship. The Fundies see this as an opportunity to lure such people into their church's, advertising them as 'fun' and giving a 'sense of community' and 'welcome to anybody'. I'm sure the later has a pile of small print as a disclaimer. Once inside, the preaching subtlety 'teaches' the vile hatred towards their fellow man.

"Your leaders have led you astray" -The Bible

"Don't be led astray" -patti smith

[thebaghwan]

100. You have to remember one thing about the RW Christians, they have at

least one meeting a week where they have some asshole pastor crank them up for Jesus and what Jesus wants according to them. On this point we are at a grave disadvantage.

[cleofus1]

103. that information is kept well hidden...

read a book.... here's an excellent one that everyone should read...so go to the fucking library or pound down the cash on Amazon...read it from page to page and you will gain some insight that will prove invaluable in you in your religious and political discourse!



"the age or religious wars"

[Bridget Burke]

105. The web is a great source of information....

But books are even better. Easier to read while commuting, too!

Of course, the web is a good way to BUY books...

[American Tragedy]

112. I love books too, of course, but not while commuting.

I think I'd scare more than a few people if I drove on the expressway at rush hour with a big hardback draped across my steering wheel, however much I may hate to put my latest reading down. :)

Another great reason to go somewhere with public transportation, I reckon.

[Bridget Burke]

113. I take the bus & light rail....

Even Houston has mass transit--for those not stranded in suburbia.

[American Tragedy]

118. Believe me, I would if I were able, Bridget.

I hate driving, and try to limit it as much as possible. I have known and loved far too many who were senselessly killed before their time by careless motorists.

As it is, I usually carpool with my father, since he works a couple of blocks away from my school, and our schedules are parallel. It's obviously not as 'cool' as having my own car :eyes:, but it is far less expensive and more fuel efficient for us to share an automobile.

[txaslftist]

108. Americans are suckers for hucksters...

[MadHound]

109. The rise of the religious right was deliberately engineered

The ruling elite in this country has long adapted a divide and conquer strategy in regards to controlling the populace in this country. The main wedge for keeping the lower classes divided was, for a long time, race. This divisive tactic was instituted back in the late 1670s, early 1680s, after Bacon's Rebellion had been put down brutally. You see, Bacon's Rebellion was something that scared the shit out of the ruling elite at the time, a mass movement across the lower classes, crossing racial boundarys, and uniting all of the lower class, whether white slave, black slave, or lower class worker of any race.

Bacon's Rebellion taught the ruling elite an important lesson, that they needed to divide the lower classes against each other in order to maintain control. Thus, one can see where laws were changed to allow whites easier access to buying their freedom, special privleges, entering trades, becoming educated, all of those institutions that whites soon came to take for granted. And while the institution of white slavery soon disappeared, for blacks in America their long nightmare was just beginning. The opportunities for advancing their lot in life, for buying their freedom, for even the most basic of human decencies were denied them. And this broad based discrimination and brutalization became so prevalent that for many many years, it was considered the norm. Thus, the lower class was kept divided, and at each others' throats, and so posed no threat to the ruling elite.

That all started to change in the 1950s with the advent of the Civil Rights movement. From those early days of Bombingham and Selma, the Civil Rights movement started uniting people of the lower class, and breaking down the barriers of race in order to unite people, black and white, against their mutual oppressor, the ruling elite. We see how MLK went from preaching about Civil Rights to calling for Human Rights(and was shot for it). We see how the Civil Rights movement spun off mass movements calling for justice and equality for people, no matter what their race. We see, despite false starts and setbacks, how the lower classes on both sides of the racial divide started looking across that great, artificial divide, and realizing that they have more in common with their lower class brethern, no matter what their race, than they do with the ruling elite of their own race. Race, as a tool to divide and conquer, was becoming ineffective.

The ruling elite saw the writing on the wall in the late sixties, and started casting about for another tool with which to keep the lower classes divided. They hit upon religion, especially fundementalist religion. Using money, power, and influence, they started to politically motivate the fundementalists for their own ends. Historically, Christian fundementalists did not involve themselves in politics, since politics was part of the world of man, and they always made their focus on the world of God. But with much prodding, money, and certain key events(Roe v Wade, among others), Christian fundementalists started to emerge from their cocoon and take their place on the political landscape. Strident, judgemental, and very exclusive in who they accepted, fundementalists were the perfect tool to divide and conquer. Nurtured with money and influence, swelled by ranks of those who were afraid of the progressivism of the '60s and '70s, the ranks and power of the religious right grew.

First flexing their political muscle in first electing Reagan, they have had their world view acknowledged and nurtured ever since. Thus, religion has become the main devisive force of the modern day. And again we see the spectacle of two groups of people who have more in common with each other than with the ruling elites, artificially divided, and kept at each others throats, all that the ruling elite can keep control of society, and never have to answer for their myriad crimes that they have committed. We are again witnessing the spectacle of people electing leaders who do not have their interests at heart, who will use them, abuse them, and throw them away. Yet nutured by the scraps thrown their way, the religious right will not abandon their ruling overlords, at least not now.

It is going to take another upheaval on par with the Civil Rights movement to wake the religious right up. Only when they face the naked cynism of their masters will they wake up and make common cause with their brethern in the lower classes to take this country back for all of the people. And when that happens, we must learn from our mistakes, and not allow the ruling elite to again divided us in order to rob and rape this country.

[lonestarnot]

114. Have been thinking about this question for a couple of days and still do

not have a good answer...maybe because the people there are already accustom to living under royalty they didn't need this too....

[Endangered Specie]

119. Because Europe KNOWS what it means to live under a

fundamentalist or extreme right wing government.

I believe they lived under it for the better part of 1000 years no?

[lonestarnot]

120. Do they tax churches over there?