Scrambles

copernicus,

Actually, the fuss was made by some british reporter and the story presented here was more like "british person criticises prime-minister's dress sense".

Either I'm not quite understanding you or you are not understanding me here. What response is natural? Are you saying it's natural for right-wingers to denounce dissenters as "unpatriotic"?
If so, that doesn't make it right...it probably makes it worse because it implies that they can't turn that behaviour off.
What I was expressing, was concern that people seem to feel the need to prove themselves as "patriots" before criticising the US government. There should be no pressure or percieved pressure on people to justify themselves like that. That is quite sinister in my opinion.



Scrambles

copernicus

That's correct. I don't think that nationalist factions differ from country to country in that respect. The nation is viewed as a gigantic "tribe" or "family", and every country has people who view it as their special mission to defend the purity of the "tribe" or nation. Nazis and fascists are extreme forms of that mentality. Tories and Republicans are perhaps the mildest forms. As guardians of our nationhood, they tend to view critics as "unpatriotic". It fits the mentality.

I certainly agree with your opinion, but you seemed (to me, anyway) to be saying earlier that you wanted to put pressure on religious extremists to toe the line. What I am saying is that moderate and extreme right-wingers exist in every country, and the US is not exceptional in that respect. The question is how we deal with them. Earlier, you complained about the way in which Americans tolerated religious extremists. You implied that something ought to be done about them. The problem is that it's a two-way street. If you develop a means to suppress such people, then the same means can be used to suppress people like yourself. So you tolerate them out of self-interest.

Why are there so many crazy groups in America? It is an extremely large and diverse nation. There is no single "pure" American, although the stereotype WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) used to be considered the norm. People representing every nation and religion on earth have come to live here.

Although every country has diversity--certainly, New Zealand does with its native groups and white former-colonists--few have quite the mix that Americans do. There is no single national church, but christianity is certainly the dominant religion. American fundamentalists consist of a cross-section of Protestant evangelicals, not a single church. You consider Bush, a protestant Methodist, to be a fundamentalist, but Methodists are not normally associated with fundamentalists. Baptists tend to be associated with fundamentalism, and Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton were Baptists. (Carter was a self-described "born again" Christian.) But those guys weren't fundamentalists. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan seldom attended church, but he still believed in the Genesis myths.

I doubt that this kind of religious diversity exists in New Zealand, and I don't think that you should criticize us for having so many kooks "spoiling the broth". The best we can do is give these people enough room to make complete fools of themselves. That is why the majority of christian Americans are not fundamentalists and do not respect fundamentalist dogma. New Zealand is not free of fundamentalists because it had mounted a strong anti-fundamentalism campaign. It never experienced anything like the waves of immigrations that we have.

ex-idaho

The thing that gives American fundies so much power is that your average Xian won't challenge them. Because of this unwillingness to challenge the fundy segment people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell can claim to speak for US Xians when clearly the majority of XIans do not agree with their agenda.

The only reason I can give for the unwillingness to challenge these people is a feeling of common cause. I think many see them as fellow Xians and choose to leave it at that.

However the Fundy sects of protestant Xianity are the fastest growing around the world including here in the US so while they are a minority they are growing minority. And the more numerous the more powerful they become.

godfry n. glad

You know, Evangelion, there is sadly a great deal of truth in your sarcasm. But, what I want to know is how is it that Australia is much different? It seems to me that Australia is stricken with the same pathology. Can we surmise that it comes from similar histories? Dumping grounds for the riff-raff of the Old World?

godfry

copernicus

Godfry, I once had an Australian tell me that violence was so prevalent in the US because we glorified violence so much on TV and in the movies. I agreed. It scared me to think of all those children watching movies like the Road Warrior and Crocodile Dundee series.

Evangelion

copernicus -

Well yes, but that's irrelevant to me, since I don't get my news from Murdoch's papers.

Why was it hypocritical? Did Australia suddenly turn into a hotbed of Fundyism, and no-one told me?

Well actually, you're discussing the network and I'm explaining why said network is irrelevant to me.

Was it, though? I find that extremely difficult to believe. If anything, surely Murdoch would have based his style on the American system.

But now that you've brought it up, I'd like to see a comprehensive list of features which embody this uniquely "Australian" style, please.

Actually, the initial premise has yet to be proved.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

We call it "speaking intelligibly."

I'll dip into the online versions of the Washington Post, the New York Times and good old Salon.com occasionally, but that's about it.

Yep, I do indeed read some print media. I read the West Australian newspaper (proudly non-Murdoch) and the Australian Financial Review (which is owned by Fairfax, not Murdoch.) Neither of these papers can be accused of painting Americans with an unfair brush.

You assume too much. Here in Australia, the battle between Fairfax and News Corporation is well documented, and the average Australian punter is very familiar with it. Generally speaking, we do indeed know who owns what - not least because these two groups own most of the Australian media between them!

Well of course! That's capitalism for you. Information goes out the window when profits start to come through the door. It's the old story.

We shall see.

I have seen people asserting that it is a "completely false impression." I have yet to see anyone prove this.

Sure. This is a no-brainer. (To use an Americanism.)

So please, feel free to explain why is it that your country...

• Maintains loose gun laws (refusing to implement tougher ones.)
  
• Thrives on unilateralism (I noticed that home-grown support for the war on Iraq grew daily.)
  
• Has a Fundamentalist president who blatantly rejects disestablishmentarianism in favour of his own theological agenda - even to the extent of pushing "faith-based initiatives" and curbing financial support for foreign charities which provide information (and support) about abortion.
  
• Has a hopelessly poor record with environmental issues.

...?

According to you, the majority of Americans want to see these things changed. So why haven't they?

If it's largely due to the strong voice of a political minority, you can stop calling yourselves a "democracy." If it's largely due to the apathy of the political majority, your "most people want to change this" argument has no force.

Which will you choose?

I'm not interested in the Oklahoma controversy, I've never mentioned it, and it forms no part of my argument.

I am not convinced that they lose more than they win at the ballot box. I would like to see some examples, please.

"Deep ignorance", eh?

Well, I had said this:

• But the point is this: yours is a nation which consists primarily of Christian Americans. And the majority of these Christian Americans would seem to be of the "Fundy" type.
  
  Not only that, but their political leanings appear to be deeply Conservative.

Am I right when I say that your nation consists primarily of Christian Americans? Yes. Am I right when I say that the majority of these Christian Americans would see to be of the "Fundy" type? Perhaps not, but perhaps this depends on your definition of "Fundy." Am I right when I say that the political leanings of these Christians are deeply Conservative"? Yes.

In short, I had argued that the American political mentality is overwhelmingly conservative. Now (by pointing out that the conservative mentality counts for 2/3 of the populace) you've just proved that I'm right.

So much for my "deep ignorance."

What exactly is this "middle" of which you speak, and by whom is it represented?

No - but my brother has, and I have plenty of American friends with whom I correspond regularly.

That depends. Do Americans count as "secondhand sources"? Do American Websites (including American media sources) count as "secondhand sources"? Does IIDF count as a "secondhand source"?

Those are my sources. Make of them what you will.

In fact, I would not be surprised at all. You have a population approaching 300 million. Diversity is to be expected.

So tell me, please - who was it who voted for Bush, who is it that's currently supporting his blatantly Christian policies, who put prayer into your public schools...?

And so the list goes on.

Evangelion

godfry -

Ooooh, where do I begin?

Do I start with our refreshingly low rate of gun-related crime, our sensible gun control laws (demanded by the Australian public, no less!), our clean air and water, the fact that we can still afford to purchase our own houses (yes, even folks like me, with a part-time job), our public healthcare system, our social security system... hell, it just keeps adding up!

Why does it "seem to you" that Australia "is stricked with the same pathology"? Violence has always been popular with human beings, of course. But America is (IMHO) the embodiment of a culture raised on violence, in which violence itself is actively glorified and worshipped.

Not so Australia.

ROTFL, not at all!

Firstly, America was never a dumping ground for the riff-raff of the Old World. She was settled by Fundamentalists (though her founding fathers were sensible deists!) and is even ruled by Fundamentalists today.

Secondly, although Australia was used as a dumping ground for the riff-raff of the Old World, she has emerged as a respectable nation with a respectable culture.

Not so America.

godfry n. glad

Hey, I envy the sensible gun control laws. The major reason for the continued proliferation of readily available firearms in the United States is that there is the perception that the governing powers have this tendency to limit freedoms and the ability to foment revolution against such tyrrany maintains those freedoms. Given the current government, can you blame us?

As for home-ownership, I don't know to what you are referring. You must be hanging out with Californians or spending time in California. Housing values around here remain within reason, despite an influx of Californians with more money than sense. I own my own home outright. And, it's a quality-built 1922 bungalow with a garden in a quality inner-city neighborhood, not some crackerbox double-wide mobile home like those we send to Arkansas and Australia.

As for the environment, just give it time. You'll catch up to us soon enough, if the evidence of the mining practices in Australia are any guide. As for clean water, the water running from my household tap is cleaner than any bottled water on the market, and it's a municipal water system. Besides, in order to have clean water, you have to have water. Most of Australia is a barely habitable bloody flippin' desert. It's easy to keep things pristine if nobody wants to be there. No water, no water to foul. No people, nobody to foul the air or water. Big whoop.

Yeah... Well, I quite understand. It wouldn't be wise to allow all those drunken sots to have firearms. In Australia it is beer and inebriation that are glorified and worshipped.

Your abyssmal grasp of history is showing. Fundamentalism didn't even exist at the founding of the United States, it's a construct of the early 20th century. Secondly, several of the states on the Atlantic seaboard got their start as penal colonies. It is only Massachusetts Bay Colony that began as an intolerant theocracy, and that by dissenters from the Elizabethan equivalent of a religious "don't ask, don't tell" policy. They were anti-episcopal, anti-papist Puritans and Pilgrims, not Fundamentalists. Other colonies were established by the followers of non-Anglican friends of the Crown (Roman Catholic and Society of Friends are a couple of examples), by greedy opportunists and ne'er-do-well younger sons of the petty aristocracy, by land-hungry refugees from the religious wars of Europe, and by the motley mixed bag of dispossessed of all stripes of religious background. Many states got their share of Calvinists with the influx of dispossessed Scots. Most of the southern colonies (Georgia and the Carolinas) were established initially as penal colonies. It was only after these colonies were closed to the British judicial system that the new penal colony, in New South Wales, was established. And, it was Anglicism which prevailed in most American colonies until after the revolution.

Yeah... right.... You just stay comfortable in your delusions. Let's just say that I've greatly appreciated the presence of Australians (to be accurate, Australian _men_) overseas when I've been travelling. The loutish, rude, crude, boorish and entirely unsophisticated behavior of Australian men drinking, puking and fighting their way throughout the world has taken a great deal of pressure off the old "ugly American" attitude which American travellers have had to deal with in the past. We've been displaced by Australians. Such is the result of that "respectable culture"....thanks, we appreciate it.

godfry

Evangelion

godfry -

Balderdash. This was already going on long before the recent clampdown on American freedoms.

The continued proliferation of readily available firearms is due to (a) the (hopelessly anachronistic) 2nd Amendment, and (b) the strength of the NRA, and her Conservative lackeys.

And rightly so, of course.

Joking aside, I think you can see my point. Sniping at Australian drunks doesn't change anything.

Alas, no. Here you confuse "Modern American Fundamentalism" with Fundamentalism simpliciter. (Your ethnocentrism is showing. Tsk, tsk.)

It may astonish you to learn that Fudamentalism existed long before America, and is not uniquely Christian. A Fundamentalist is not "Somene who's a really, really conservative American Christian", but someone who's hopelessly (and irrationally) passionate about their belief system.

Fundamentalism is simply the religious equivalent of nationalism. It is not limited to Christianity, it existed before Christianity, and it was certainly not defined purely by the American experience. Bottom line: the word "Fundamentalism" is a relatively youthful term for a decidedly ancient phenomenon.

Just because it wasn't called "Fundamentalism" before the 20th Century, doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

Well, well. That's news to me, so thanks for pointing it out. But a few penal colonies here and there do not "a dumping ground for the riff-raff of the Old World" make.

Bottom line: Australia was originally established as a giant penal colony. That was the specific purpose of the British state in colonising Terra Australis.

This stands in direct contrast to America.

I never once claimed that America began as an intolerant theocracy, so this has no impact on my argument.

*snip*

Exactly. Anti-episcopal, anti-papist... in fact, anti-anything that wasn't Puritan. These people were, by definition, Fundamentalists.

Hence the comments of Steve Waldman:

• What should we do about these backward religious fundamentalists, who stand against everything we believe in this country? They oppose freedom of worship, murder religious opponents, and view other faiths as Satanic.
  
  How about we have a national holiday celebrating them? I speak, of course, not of the Taliban but of the Pilgrims, America�s founding fundamentalists.
  
  This week we are both fighting our war against fundamentalism gone amok and celebrating Thanksgiving, which is in part a tribute to the Pilgrims and their Puritan brethren. In the short form of the Thanksgiving story, the Pilgrims came to America so they could practice their faith freely--heroes in the cause of religious tolerance.
  
  In fact, while it's true that they left so that they might practice their faith, they were hardly religious pluralists. They left because they were angry that the English church was too Catholic. Once here, the Puritans worked hard to purge the land of those who disagreed.
  
  The Puritans executed several Quakers for their religious beliefs (another two merely had their ears cut off), expelled Roger Williams for his views (he went on to found Rhode Island), and eventually produced the Salem witch trials.
  
  G.K.Chesterton wrote that the Puritans "would have died heroically in torment rather than tolerate any religious liberty" and that "the whole Puritan movement...was a struggle against religious toleration."
  
  The Pilgrims vs. the Taliban: What we can learn from our Founding Fundamentalists (2001.)

And from Rabbi Ken Spiro:

• One of the best examples of the power of the Bible in modern political development is the 17th century English Civil War known as the Puritan Revolution. The Puritans, who were Protestant fundamentalists, were also devout believers in the Bible.
  
  They felt that the Church of England was not in keeping with the true religious spirit which they believed included the right of everyone to interpret God's law. They also rejected the absolutism of the king, then Charles I. The Puritans felt that Parliament, and not the King, should have the final say and that the moral guidance for all legal decision should come from the Bible which they considered to be the highest authority in all matters.
  
  [...]
  
  Throughout all these events the Bible played an absolutely central role. The Puritans were obsessed with the book. They came to identify their political struggle against Charles with that of the ancient Hebrews against Pharaoh or the King of Babylon. Because they identified so strongly with ancient Israel, they chose overwhelmingly to identify with the Old Testament, which of course is the Hebrew Bible.
  
  They read it everywhere, studied Hebrew and even gave their children Hebrew names. Cromwell's "New Model Army" marched into battle singing Psalms and carrying banners embroidered with the Lion of Judea; their battle cry was "The Lord God of Hosts."
  
  [...]
  
  Although Puritan domination of England did not survive the death of Cromwell in 1658, it did leave a lasting legacy of political reform not only to England, but to the rest of Europe as well. Puritans and other Protestant splinter sects would also play a crucial role in the political and religious formation of America which is the next chapter of our story.
  
  The Impact of the Bible: Protestants and Puritans. (2000.)

I defy anyone to prove that these people were not Fundamentalists.

Evangelion

copernicus - in relation to our "Fundies are running the show" debate, I now direct your attention to the following points made by an American here at IIDF:

The thread is here. The author is James Still.

I invite your comments.