America being ridiculous...again

[bobbyburns]

Fair enough. What do you consider free, bobby?

pure observation. in awareness you discover your lack of freedom, then you're finished with it. that in itself brings about change.

 

[novella]

Let's see . . . do I want to continue with this thread and possibly waste my time engaging with Wabbit, when he clearly does not understand the difference between legal limits and personal actions? Well . . . why not?

The separation of church and state in the US is a matter of law. It is illegal for the president, or anyone else, to impose any religion on any citizen. The president is entitled to speak about his own personal beliefs, just as anyone else is. If we do not have a secular president now, it does not mean that we are not a secular state. The fact that US citizens make a stink about bringing religious rhetoric into politics shows how free we are, not how unfree.


A state religion, as most European countries have, does allow the state to control and mandate religious practices. If they choose not to do it most of the time at present, that is purely incidental, and not, in fact, because they are prohibited by law. In fact, religious rituals are commonplace in most European government ceremonies.

Because of this difference, true tolerance has not yet been tested in Europe. The citizens know and accept the status quo, which can easily turn ugly and yet remain within a European nation's law, as we all know.

You are entitled to your beliefs, and I am entitlted to mine. But if the law says it is legal for me to impose mine on you, it is your freedom that is lost. That's illegal in the US, but NOT in many European countries, where a Christian mass and religious blessing are part of many state functions.


About "gay marriage" in EU countries:

UK--illegal

France--civil union, which does not convey the same rights as marriage, but allows for inheritance and insurance rights, as have been legally guaranteed in the US for decades. The only gay wedding to take place in France was annulled immediately by a court. No adoptions allowed.

Germany--same as France, a civil union, with some privileges, but not all the rights of a hetero marriage. No adoptions allowed.

Italy--illegal

Spain--Draft law passed just last month. Untested as yet. No adoptions.

Netherlands--legal

Greece--illegal

Belguim--legal

Iceland--civil union, rights protected as in US

Denmark--legal

Finland --civil union, rights protected as in US

Turkey--illegal

The countries with civil unions largely forbid adoption by gay couples. Such adoptions are legal and accepted in the US, and have been for 20 years.

This looks like not much of a consensus, but something similar to what is going on in the US now, with some debate, some change, much discussion. Many of the law in the EU are very recent. It's not as if there is any real difference between the ongoing process in Europe and that in the US.

The rights that have been granted to gays in most European countries have long been established in the US. They are not the same as marriage.

 

[Crystal]

You are entitled to your beliefs, and I am entitlted to mine. But if the law says it is legal for me to impose mine on you, it is your freedom that is lost. That's illegal in the US, but NOT in many European countries, where a Christian mass and religious blessing are part of many state functions.

...

Novella, help me with this--and sorry for intervene-- if u.s. in the name of freeing people under some dicatorship of its government in other country, such as the Caliban government, impose its conception of what was freedom/what was legal or illegal on other country, does it mean that the freedom of that country is lost? because that country is said to have no freedom to choose its own way to manage its own country. and because the government of u.s said the Caliban did not fit the spirit of maybe u.s' freedom or domecracy?

 

[novella]

Novella, help me with this--and sorry for intervene-- if u.s. in the name of free people under some dicatorship of the government in other country, such as the Caliban, does it mean that the freedom of that country is lost? because the government of u.s said the Caliban did not fit the spirit of maybe u.s' freedom or domecracy?

This is my opinion, and I hope I am interpretting your question right:

I think you are asking whether the US removal of the Taliban in another nation was justified in the name of freedom.

My opinion is that the US acted aggressively in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, in order to strike effectively against Al-Qaida, but that their actions were legitimate and supported by the international community in that context. Of course, they would not have gone there nor removed the Taliban if 9/11 had not taken place. The cause and effect are very particular to that time and place.

On the other hand, I think their unilateral "preventative" strike against Iraq was illegal and unjustified under those circumstances, and therefore wrong.

Further, I think it is imperialistic to invade sovereign countries and topple governments in the name of freedom, particularly on an obviously ad hoc self-serving basis.

Unofortunately, the US courts don't govern US foreign policy very well. That's created quite a difficult situation at the moment, given the administration's righteous pugilistic attitude and the ignorance of the general electorate. (For example, a polled majority of those who voted for Bush still think WMDs were found in Iraq.)

 

[cajunmama]

And please just help with this question: is it true that in the u.s. , the relationship among familiy members are kind cold or detached?? Thank you.

Watercrystal, what in the world ever gave you that impression? Besides that, broad generalizations like that are most often wrong. I'll give you examples from my own life.
-I come from a large family and at family gatherings, with many people, it was expected that upon arriving, each would "make the rounds" telling everyone else hello, and at the very least hugging them, if not a kiss on the cheek. This could take as much as half an hour. The same was expected at leaving, which could often take half an hour as well ,to tell everyone goodbye.
-I have fond memories from my childhood of my grandmother, now deceased, washing my long hair for me at the side of the bathtub when I would be at her home for a long visit.
-My sisters and I, now adults, still have the habit of greeting each other with a hug, and often tell each other "I love you." I know that I am blessed to have my sisters as my two best friends.
- My children always have and always will be shown affection by me and their father. They show each other affection as well, often comforting each other when they have been reprimanded or hurt. My oldest son is looking forward to the day his brother is old enough to not sleep in a crib, so that they can sleep in the same bed.
I know I am not the exception. Have I answered your question?

 

[hay82]

A state religion, as most European countries have, does allow the state to control and mandate religious practices. If they choose not to do it most of the time at present, that is purely incidental, and not, in fact, because they are prohibited by law. In fact, religious rituals are commonplace in most European government ceremonies.

Yes most European countries have a state religion but the state has absolutely no right to interfere in a persons religious beliefs and that is a matter of law. Religious rituals in government ceremonies? like the president of the united states swearing on the bible at the start of his office?

 

[cajunmama]

Yes most European countries have a state religion but the state has absolutely no right to interfere in a persons religious beliefs and that is a matter of law. Religious rituals in government ceremonies? like the president of the united states swearing on the bible at the start of his office?

I'm with you all the way on that. If the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in front of a courthouse, if a cross on the seal of the City of Los Angeles has to be removed, then the President can't swear on a bible and every congressional meeting should not begin with a prayer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[novella]

Yes most European countries have a state religion but the state has absolutely no right to interfere in a persons religious beliefs and that is a matter of law.

It depends which country. In France, they've forbidden wearing hajibs to school, but crucifixes are explicitly allowed.

In Italy, a woman has been repeatedly fined and reprimanded for wearing Islamic dress in public.


Religious education (ie., Church of England) is a basic part of the curriculum in England's state schools.

These things are all illegal in the US.

I'm sure there are lots of other examples . . .

You know, I think all religious symbols and references should be absent from all US gov't functions and ceremonies.


I'm not defending the US here, just pointing out that the differences between European countries' approach to these issues and the US's approach is very similar. We are all wrestling with the same cultural strains. The idea that Europe is somehow more liberal and has it all sorted out is just a myth. The fact is, when the US is debating these issues, the world is listening. When they are debated in, say, Norway, not that many people hear about it.

 

[hay82]

You know, I think all religious symbols and references should be absent from all US gov't functions and ceremonies.

I agree although I would expand it to include all the world. If you are a Muslim and se Christian symbols in your government then that might offend you. A government should be free of such symbols since they don't represent everyone.

I'm not defending the US here, just pointing out that the differences between European countries' approach to these issues and the US's approach is very similar. We are all wrestling with the same cultural strains. The idea that Europe is somehow more liberal and has it all sorted out is just a myth. The fact is, when the US is debating these issues, the world is listening. When they are debated in, say, Norway, not that many people hear about it.

Of course you're defending the US. You are an American and I would find it a bit strange if you would not defend your contry. Finding out which nation is the most liberal is probably going to be very difficult, by what means does one measure such a thing?
You are right that everyone hear the debates in the US because US is the most powerfull (not only in means of military) nation in the world. I just find it scary that the most powerfull nation seems to be very religious, since a lot of wars have been started with religion as an excuse.

Hay

 

[Irene Wilde]

Of course you're defending the US. You are an American and I would find it a bit strange if you would not defend your contry.

Further proof of my strangeness (like it was needed).

When every American can go to a doctor when they need to, when black, brown, and white people are proportionately represented in the both our colleges and our military, when our border with Mexico looks no different than our border with Canada, when every child in a public school truly receives an equal education, maybe I'll feel more like defending this place.

Irene Wilde

 

[mr_michel]

i simply think U.S. its a quite liberal country which happens to have a conservative goverment at the moment

 

[hay82]

When every American can go to a doctor when they need to, when black, brown, and white people are proportionately represented in the both our colleges and our military, when our border with Mexico looks no different than our border with Canada, when every child in a public school truly receives an equal education, maybe I'll feel more like defending this place.

I think you'll have trouble finding a country that can live up to all those things.
My goal is a world without boarders and the terms black, brown and white is a thing of the past and has been replaced by the word friend.. You can call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Hay

 

[Irene Wilde]

I think you'll have trouble finding a country that can live up to all those things.
My goal is a world without boarders and the terms black, brown and white is a thing of the past and has been replaced by the word friend.. You can call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Hay

But not every country goes advertising itself as "The Land of Opportunity," "Home of the Free," or "Defender of Democracy."

No, you aren't the only one...and it's nice to know I'm not either.

Irene Wilde

 

[Rogue]

A state religion, as most European countries have, does allow the state to control and mandate religious practices. If they choose not to do it most of the time at present, that is purely incidental, and not, in fact, because they are prohibited by law. In fact, religious rituals are commonplace in most European government ceremonies.

Where?
You know fact is that in Europe the countries have an overhelming majority of one religion (mostly Roman Catholic) and that's what coined us. In Austria there are 78% Roman Catholic, 5% Protestants and the rest consists in different minorities. We don't impose our faith on anybody but fact is that the Roman Catholic faith coined our history. There is no way around that. And yes we have Religious Education (Roman Catholic) at school but it isn't mandatory and pupils witch another faith get an extra teacher for their religion. At the moment they try to change it into ethics.
In the US there are 56% Protestant, 28% Roman Catholic, 2% Jewish, 4% other and 10% none. I wouldn't call that a big majority but your President swears on the Bible

 

[Rogue]

i simply think U.S. its a quite liberal country which happens to have a conservative goverment at the moment

But fact is that half of the country voted for this conservative government so I would suspect that half of the country is conservative too. Wouldn't that make it less liberal?

 

[Irene Wilde]

But fact is that half of the country voted for this conservative government so I would suspect that half of the country is conservative too. Wouldn't that make it less liberal?

Slightly more than half, Giz, that's the crucial difference. About 4,000,000 by the last count I bothered to look at.

It is almost like there are two Americas, the one that occupies the east and west coasts, and the one that makes up that big mass in the middle. I don't pretend to understand it, but apparently the thinking in America's "Heartland" is dramatically different than it is on either coast.

Irene Wilde

 

[novella]

Where?
You know fact is that in Europe the countries have an overhelming majority of one religion (mostly Roman Catholic) and that's what coined us. In Austria there are 78% Roman Catholic, 5% Protestants and the rest consists in different minorities. . . . In the US there are 56% Protestant, 28% Roman Catholic, 2% Jewish, 4% other and 10% none. I wouldn't call that a big majority but your President swears on the Bible

As I said earlier, I personally think that, in conformance with the US Constitution, all religious symbols and references should be barred from gov't proceedings.

But, I don't get what you're driving at here. Austria, 83% Christian, US 82% Christian--by the statistics you've provided! So why are you defending religion in your gov't, but objecting to a single reference in ours? (I prefer it in neither, and in the US it is legally barred, with some particular vestiges of history currently under debate.)

 

[Yobmod]

Religious education (ie., Church of England) is a basic part of the curriculum in England's state schools.

I went to a state school in england, and RE was part of the curiculum, but it wasn't compulsory, and could be dropped completly at 14. We studied Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sihkism and some vague humanitarianism.

I found it (like most of school) a waste of time, but not really any different from history - probably a bit more interesting cos i like mythologies.

As for america being liberal i'm not sure as i havn't been there, but the americans i met at uni had a strange attitude to alcohol, but probably only in a similar way that english teenagers would seem strange to continental europeans.

 

[Rogue]

But, I don't get what you're driving at here. Austria, 83% Christian, US 82% Christian--by the statistics you've provided! So why are you defending religion in your gov't, but objecting to a single reference in ours? (I prefer it in neither, and in the US it is legally barred, with some particular vestiges of history currently under debate.)

I don't think that Prostestant and Roman Catholic faith are the same!

Although both Protestants and Roman Catholics share the common ground of being founded upon faith in Jesus Christ, there are significant differences between the two groups.
However, the main distinction that sets them apart is the authority to which they look for their core beliefs. The Protestant Church generally embraces the Bible as its sole source of authority and faith, while the Catholic Church views the post-biblical traditions of the church and its Popes to have more than equal authority with scripture.

 

[mr_michel]

But fact is that half of the country voted for this conservative government so I would suspect that half of the country is conservative too. Wouldn't that make it less liberal?

for starters its not half the country, its slighty above half of the voters, about 118 million in a country of 293 million, so we could said that actually a fifth part of the country vote for a conservative candidate.

voting for a conservative doesnt make you a conservative, (just the way that not voting doesnt make you an anarchist). there are a lot of issues that worried the voters, the results just means that a slight majority thought that the conservative candidate would handle the bigger ones better.
usually non party affiliates (and some affiliates too) vote acording to proposals of each candidate and not for the party.

you should ask yourself what was on the mind of all those non affiliates when they voted for bush

go check polls and reports on how liberal its the people on usa.
check how people feel about gay or interracial marriages, unions, gun control, how much people its living in civil union, abortion, civil rights movements, enviroment movements, or whatever topic means liberal to you, and you might get a surprise.

what i mean its if i were an U.S citizent and was damn scared cause of the weapons of mass destruction and the terrorists, even if i believe in gay marriage, better healthcare or whatever issue considered liberal, probably would voted for bush since he seems to be more commited to this war on terror than kerry