Here's one of the men who could be "leader of the free world." There's no doubt in his mind that Christianity is the superior religion. I wonder if the other candidate thinks differently?
BTW, how's that experiment working out?
See Jim Lippard's comment at McCain thinks the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. I don't think Jim is going to vote for this man!
[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]
21 comments :
"The greatest experiment," Well.....perhaps the LEAST crappy.
I got our Mankind @ YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
"America: The Greatest Experiment in the History of Mankind"
...
BTW, how's that experiment working out?
I dunno Larry, how does it feel living in the experimental control?
About Barak
Something tells me we will be hearing no more complaints from PZ about Barak's religion (if only her went PC for evolution, too)
Also racists in general are being put in evidence, as to just how profoundly they can be out-of-tune with reality.
They may shy into the darkness.
By the way Larry, talking about racists, do you still defend Jim Watson's statements?
Do you still think we have insufficiently explored the possibility that genetically determined diffences in intelligence cluster with race?
Democracies are not the least crappy; republics are the least crappy with the best chance of long-term survival.
Democracies tend to expand the franchise to gain control of voting sectors. The moment the franchise expands to include those eating from the public trough, the inevitable end is a dictatorship.
Do bear in mind that Athenian democracy lasted 40 years. It was pulled down by the weight of ignorant "voters" -- who, incidentally, allowed themselves to be led by popular entertainers. (sound familiar?)
The Roman Republic lasted 700 years... and it had civil wars, too, to maintain a Republic. The US is not a democracy as originally designed. It is a REPUBLIC, the founding fathers did not trust a democracy -- and they have been shown to be right.
Look at the way "democracy" and "republic" are confused in the US. Doesn't that tell you folks something?
BTW, no, the constitution does not explicitly state that Christianity is "the" religion. Church and state can be segregated on republican principles. (Though not in Rome --- no "state" was separated from church in Antiquity. Couldn't be done when every act was a contract between the parties and a god.)
However, read some statements by the founding fathers: it never crossed their minds that Christianity was not the basis of their new Republic.
And cut the PC cant, Sanders; one can dislike Obama without being racist. One can be anti-Obama on his record. I, for one, cannot see how someone with no experience outside of the streets of Chicago (or did you not recognize that "Lay off my wife" bit as street gang talk -- just a sample of what to expect when he's in a corner -- he clearly reverts) can be expected to handle the office of president of the US in such a dangerous time.
However, read some statements by the founding fathers: it never crossed their minds that Christianity was not the basis of their new Republic..
Anonymous,
You may want to do some serious reading and thinking yourself. Although Christianity and religion in general formed a backdrop for the American experience during the revolutionary and founding periods, it was not the basis for separating from England or for establishing our secular constitutional government.
Enlightenment thought with its basis in empirical knowledge and rational construction (absent supernatural intervention) was, without a doubt, the foundation for the architects. Christian intolerance and atrocities both abroad and within the colonies galvanized the desire to disestablish religion from governance.
Deist, with the belief in an impersonal non-interventionist Creator, or possibly rational theist, with a disbelief in the trinity and the miraculous, are accurate reflections of the religious views of key founders such as Madison, Jefferson, Washington, etc. And this is reflected in the language of the times as preserved in the founding documents including the Constitution
There is an industry of Christian conservative fundamentalists that continue the attack on the secular nature of our government as enacted by the deists and the rational theists as well as the orthodox Christian members of the Convention and Congress when the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified. The attacks began almost instantaneously.
By "statements" I assume that you mean quotes, which are most abused by the liars for Jesus through the use of fabricated quotes, partial quotes and quotes taken out of context to distort their original meaning.
In addition to secular scholars there are good Christian scholars out there that do their faith justice by conducting unbiased research and presenting facts as they are and not how they can be molded to fit the Bible. If you're still hanging around and would like some reading suggestions I'd be happy to help.
anonymous asks,
Look at the way "democracy" and "republic" are confused in the US. Doesn't that tell you folks something?
Yes, it tells me a great deal about how Americans think.
Canada's from of government can best be described as a constitutional monarchy. It is also a representative democracy just like the United Kingdom and most western industrialized nations. Canada is not a republic even though is has a constitution, a Bill of Rights, and a powerful Supreme Court that defends the constitution.
The USA has an elected Head of State. The important distinction is that in a republic the Head of State is not hereditary. The USA is a republic. The original intention of the American constitution was that the President and Vice President would be elected by a select group of electors chosen by the state legislatures. Similarly, senators would be selected by state legislatures and not by popular vote. These are non-democratic ways of choosing leaders and they were probably put in place because some of the founding fathers didn't trust the people and wanted to put restraints on the power of the popularly elected House of Representatives.
Today, the USA is a representative democracy. The constitution was changed to allow election of Senators (Seventeenth Amendment, 1913) and an ingenious work-around has been devised to subvert the wishes of the founding fathers in electing a President and Vice-President.
Other well-known examples of republics are Switzerland (from about 1353), Rome (before Julius Caesar), and France (on and off from 1798). Switzerland and France are democracies. Rome, not so much.
American tend to have a bizarre notion that the difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic the citizens are protected by a constitution while in a democracy the majority can suppress the rights of individuals.
This concept seems to be confined to the USA. Americans seem to be the only people in the world who think that representative democracies don't have constitutions and bills of rights.
I assume that this confusion is related to lack of knowledge about the outside world. Is that what it's supposed to tell me?
"The original intention of the American constitution was that the President and Vice President would be elected by a select group of electors chosen by the state legislatures. Similarly, senators would be selected by state legislatures and not by popular vote. These are non-democratic ways of choosing leaders and they were probably put in place because some of the founding fathers didn't trust the people and wanted to put restraints on the power of the popularly elected House of Representatives."
Specifically, the Senate was supposed to represent states' interests, and the Electoral College was supposed to prevent the presidential election from being a popularity contest. The original role of the president was "chief magistrate" who enforced the laws the legislature produced and didn't define a legislative agenda or appeal to the people to apply pressure on their representatives to support his own agenda. During the 20th century, the role of the president expanded, and now most U.S. federal regulations originate in the executive branch and Congress has almost completely abdicated its role as a check on executive power.
Larry, thanks for the link. And there was never any chance of my voting for McCain... he's one of my two Senators, but he's never gotten a vote from me in the past and I'm not planning to start in November.
Jim Lippard wrote: During the 20th century, the role of the president expanded, and now most U.S. federal regulations originate in the executive branch and Congress has almost completely abdicated its role as a check on executive power.
[pedantic]
Regulations by definition come from the executive branch, while statutes by definition come from Congress. Also, by law (court decisions on the legality of executive regulatory bodies and the regulations they issue under the U.S. and state Constitutions, and statutes enacted as a result of these decisions), regulations cannot have scopes broader than the laws they implement, or else they are ultra vires, i.e., beyond the power/authority of the executive.
[/pedantic]
Now, to what you actually meant: Real life is more complicated than that. The overall legislative agenda is set by the executive, in close consultation with at least the senior members of his/her own party's leadership in the Congress. How much input comes from the executive and the legislature varies in accordance with Presidential popularity, stage of the Presidential term (a popular President at the beginning of his/her first term being the most powerful), subject matter (e.g., the President's wishes hold more sway regarding money for foreign policy measures, while in matters of tax code arcana the chairs or ranking members of the relevant Congressional committees have more input), and other factors.
The job of implementing the legislative agenda usually falls to the Congressional leadership of the President's party, unless the President's Congressional liaison personnel are so unusually good at their jobs that they can shoulder some of the person-by-person vote counting and persuasion burden.
Canada responsible for darkest day in U.S. history
Dr. Moran, I referred to the Roman Republic -- I mentioned that it lasted 700 years -- in spite of awkward moments such as Sulla's vicious multiple-year dictatorship won by terror tactics. (BTW, a dictator in Roman terms was elected for one year in problematic times.) The entire senatorial disposition in the US constitution was specifically based on the Roman model. (Of course, it's not "democratic"!)
Caesar enlarged the "franchise." That is, he swung the plebians. Octavian followed in his adopted father's footsteps. Augustus went so far as to pack the colleges with plebians.
Athenian democracy was popular vote and did turn into popularity contests. I wonder if folks know how many states and countries have gone under by these popularity contests. History is replete with them. The popular vote went in the wrong direction so many times. Emotions, not rationalist thought directed the actions. We are seeing it again.
The founding fathers were educated men and perfectly aware of the pitfalls of various types of government. They wrote protection into the constitution. That protection has been stripped and what they were afraid of has happened. Do note that elections in the US have turned into popularity contests. At least, that is what the popular vote is -- which, of course, is not how elections actually operate here. (Amazing how many voters think that their vote is direct and counts.)
Further, if some folks knew a tad more history, they would be aware that church and state(or kingdom or city-state)as one is the norm and has been for at least 5,000 years. It had precious little to do with Christianity -- the syncretistic religion par excellence.
Now, take notice: The comment everyone is making fun of is not that far off. The attempt to separate church and state is the real "greatest experiment in the History of mankind."
What people do not realize is that it's only because the West was essentially Christianized that a rationalist point of view could even gain a foothold.
Incidentally, the Roman version of Christianity did not become the monolithic establishment (which it is erroneously assumed to have been since the first century CE) until the First Crusade. That's right; the Roman Catholic Church was in "absolute" control for only 350 years. Monoliths just ask to be tumbled -- and they cannot admit to error. The enlightenment and the reformation both took off after the monolith. It is so much more convenient to have one group to fight than many. (Just ask Athanasius; he made good use of this old technique.)
Yes, you are quite right. I was pointing out how ignorant the average American is... civics classes are no longer a standard part of the curricula. (Let's not get into what's happening in science and math.)
Having lived in Europe and around the Mediterranean basin for more than 25 years I can be rather objective in evaluation of our problems. The worst problems we have in the West are that we are circumscribed and arrogant. We are so sure of our superiority that we are utterly ignorant of other cultures -- where ancient mores and governments are still in force. We think in terms of rational dialogs were none can be held.
Yes, jimmyraybob, of course, Jefferson was a deist. Incidentally,I did not vote for McCain, either, the nine years I lived in AZ. But the few qualified Democrats candidates were knocked out early -- thanks to the popularity contests aided and abetted by the MSM and entertainers..
BTW, I am neither a Christian nor a member of the lies for Jesus fraternity.
Anonymous says,
Now, take notice: The comment everyone is making fun of is not that far off. The attempt to separate church and state is the real "greatest experiment in the History of mankind."
Like I said, how's that great experiment working out? Looks like a complete bust to me.
Many of those western industrialized nations that didn't bother to separate church and state are much better off today than the USA—at least when it comes to the influence of religion on government.
Further, if some folks knew a tad more history, they would be aware that church and state(or kingdom or city-state)as one is the norm and has been for at least 5,000 years. It had precious little to do with Christianity -- the syncretistic religion par excellence. I will forget for a moment your superficial comparison of the politics of a city state such as Athens to that of a vast empire such as Rome. That is the least of your problems. The church itself as an idea has almost no applicability in the study of traditions outside Christianity, not even in the other two Abrahamic religions - Judaism and Islam. And the terms religion is inapplicable unless one is willing to mangle the facts when studies traditions outside the Abrahamic fold. although many elements of the Roman tradition were coopted into Christianity including some of Rome's own appropriations from Egypt (notably the Horus and Isis traditions), quite a bit more found its way back into Christian Rome from popular Buddhism from Central Asia and the Middle East. Chanakya advises the king to keep devotions and faith at arm's length. The combination of church and state and their subsequent disengagement is the result of an interplay of forces within Christendom. It is the Church of Rome that claimed dominion over the city of man and offered the only path to the city of god. The Protestant Reformation rebelled so we have the separation of church and state.
George W Bush proved that a white man with all the connections could fuck up and dilapidate the state and people on a war that (unlike many others in the past) does not stir the heart of anyone (these kind of wars often are a sign of decadence and aimlessness)
Barak Obama has proved that a black man without connections can use his intelligence to snatch the democratic nomination and a shot at the US presidency (snatch, cause no one was going to just give it to him!)
Sure Barak doesn't have the connections GW Bush or Hillary has, and this may pose him some difficulties (on the other hand , he may know just how to handle the presidency).
I think some people don't understand why people need Obama so much. It's about "spiritual", not purely material, gain. Americans know that with Barak, they will be able to feel better about themselves, because right now, they are having serious difficulties with that.
While the problems of the US will certainly not fade overnight, some existential solace, and thus a form of improving life conditions, will be found.
Barak Obama's candidacy may represent America's greatest asset: It's vitality. The capacity for renewal and the undertaking of great challenges.
Specially so, even if Barak's presidency were a technical "disaster" (though it will be, honestly, VERY difficcult to outdo Bush), he is representing the right thing, leadership of IDEAS rather than a "leadership" by military domination. The benefits of Barak's presidency may not be immediate, but a true change in the way topics are discussed may become his true legacy in the long run.
Chickenonymous, let's not forget the "golden age" of the roman empire; Trajanus, Adrian, Pius Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius.
Jud: You are accurately describing how things are now (and have been since the late 19th/early 20th century). Presidents in the 18th century through the mid-to-late 19th century did not set legislative agendas and there were no federal regulatory agencies. The first U.S. federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was not created until 1887.
"Like I said, how's that great experiment working out? Looks like a complete bust to me.
Many of those western industrialized nations that didn't bother to separate church and state are much better off today than the USA—at least when it comes to the influence of religion on government."
A complete bust? Hardly. I'd rather have separation of church and state than an official state religion, even if that official state religion is a sickly one--I object to my tax dollars going to support religious institutions, and the U.S. courts have, even under Bush, still done a pretty good job of preventing that from happening. My state, Arizona, has more explicit prohibitions on spending state revenue for religious purposes in its Constitution.
Jim Lippard says,
A complete bust? Hardly. I'd rather have separation of church and state than an official state religion, even if that official state religion is a sickly one--I object to my tax dollars going to support religious institutions, and the U.S. courts have, even under Bush, still done a pretty good job of preventing that from happening. My state, Arizona, has more explicit prohibitions on spending state revenue for religious purposes in its Constitution.
I see. If that's all you care about then your country is a roaring success. Have fun living under a theocracy. I'm sure you won't mind being controlled by the religious right as long as your tax dollars don't go directly to some church.
Don't you care that ....
1. Evolution isn't being taught in schools.
2. A woman's right to choose is threatened.
3. Stem cell research has been curtailed.
4. Gays and lesbians can't get married.
5. Atheists can't get elected to most political offices.
6. Abstinence is the best way to protect your youth from sexually transmitted disease.
I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE." HERE IS MY PLAN:
WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY. HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:
THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.
I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT. I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.
WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT. THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:
...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY. WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.
IV. HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.
I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.
I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES. I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES. DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS. DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:
THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY. YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS
IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.
THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.
HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS'S BOOK MEXIFORNI THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO PLEASE, PLEASE IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED PLEASE,.
"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM." NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.
NEW WORLD ORDER E.L.F. PSYCHOTRONIC TYRANNY
By: C.B. Baker YOUTH ACTION NEWSLETTER ISSUED DECEMBER 1994
This Is the probably why we"the americans" are becomming less and less favored, I could care less about a black or a white president any more than I could care about a male or female one. They make all of the information we need unavailable, they oppress us, and supposidly have mind control, to keep us in line.. however I dont think they are controlling my mind and the way I think it is elementally fucked up.
"1. Evolution isn't being taught in schools.
2. A woman's right to choose is threatened.
3. Stem cell research has been curtailed.
4. Gays and lesbians can't get married.
5. Atheists can't get elected to most political offices.
6. Abstinence is the best way to protect your youth from sexually transmitted disease."
1. Sure it is. Science standards vary state by state, many states do all right with evolution.
2. Abortion is still legal.
3. What's been curtailed is federal funding for stem cell research. California approved $3 billion in funding for stem cell research, and there's also still private funding. I expect this will get reversed under the Obama administration, as well. How much funding is there for stem cell research in all of Canada? (Or even per capita?)
4. This is a slow global change that's in progress--it's now legal in two states, with civil unions legal in another two states, and I'm sure the number will grow in coming years. Canada only legalized gay marriage in 2005, so I hardly think this constitutes evidence that the U.S. is a failed experiment.
5. This is not unique to the U.S., either. Again, I think this will ultimately change. (There's also some evidence that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist, at least for part of his life.)
6. Abstinence-only sex education is something else that Bush has pushed, but is not the standard in all places. I fully expect this to change with Obama as president, as well.
Larry, you can't defend the extreme position you set out for yourself--that the U.S. is an utter failure--by pointing to a few odds and ends that are problems in this country. The U.S. has generated enormous wealth and innovation, has successfully integrated immigrants from a large number of countries, grants more Ph.D.s, has more Nobel prizewinners, generates more patents, has stronger defense of freedom of speech, etc. than most of the rest of the world.
There are certainly serious political problems in this country, but on virtually any measure you choose, the U.S. comes out far better than most countries.
BTW, one item you didn't mention that I would point to as a serious problem here is the incarceration rate.
Just came across this paragraph, summarizing the RAND Corporation's new "U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology" study:
"The report demonstrates that America is still the world's science and technology powerhouse. It accounts for 40% of total world spending on research and development, and produces 63% of the most frequently cited publications. It is home to 30 of the world's leading 40 universities, and employs 70% of the world's living Nobel laureates. America produces 38% of patented new technologies in the OECD and employs 37% of the OECD's researchers."
(Source: "What crisis?", The Economist, June 14, 2008, p. 40)
If that's a "complete bust," what's success look like?
Jim Lippard says,
Larry, you can't defend the extreme position you set out for yourself--that the U.S. is an utter failure--by pointing to a few odds and ends that are problems in this country.
The question we are debating is whether the American experiment of a constitutional separation of church and state is "the greatest experiment in the history of mankind."
I maintain that there are dozens of nations that are far less threatened with the interference of religion in government and society.
Almost all of those nations have never made a issue of separating church and state yet today they are much more secular than America.
We're not talking about how big and powerful and wealthy America is. We're talking about how much influence religion has on American society and American government.
If America becomes a theocracy the fact that it is big and powerful will make it much more dangerous.
I'd say that the U.S. becoming a theocracy is highly implausible to the point of absurdity. It's more likely that the U.S. will split into multiple countries than it is that courts will start enforcing the equivalent of sharia law. (Though I wouldn't object to sharia rules voluntarily agreed to as a form of arbitration, so long as those rules don't violate any rights considered to be inalienable--e.g., no slavery contracts.)
On the other hand, the UK has seriously proposed sharia courts, to go along with its publicly-funded Muslim schools. The publicly-funded Archbishop of Canterbury says sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable."
The one well-known example of a publicly-funded charter school in the U.S. that's teaching Islam, TIZA in Minneapolis, has rightly come under fire for violating the separation of church and state. There are others, but they've also come under scrutiny and criticism.
Further, if you look at U.S. history, the concept of separation of church and state has changed over time, and, aside from a few exceptional incursions under the Bush administration and from certain Supreme Court justices, separation is stronger now than it was in the first half of the twentieth century. Nonbelievers have gone from a virtually nonexistent demographic in 1900 to one that is recognizably present today.
The irony is that the high level of U.S. religiosity is also probably responsible for most funding and organization of skepticism and atheism occurring in the U.S.
Post a Comment