American Politics

[Duke87 1,070]

Given how often the question comes up, it's inevitable that at some point a same sex couple will file a lawsuit against a religious institution for refusing to marry them. There is indeed some sentiment out there in favor of enforcing anti-discrimination law against churches on matters like this, with the argument being that it's necessary in order bring about true equality. It's not a majority sentiment but it's there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, they had better have deep pockets.  Such a suit is rather frivolous, but given the litigious nature of the American populace, I agree it is inevitable.  The courts would be well advised to stay away from Theology.

In the bad old days, if a court ruled to force gay marriage in the Catholic Church, there is a good chance that the Church would respond with an Interdict which would close the Church across the entire country.

Since religious belief is a personal right guaranteed by the first amendment, this kind of nonsense can go on for decades depending on depth of pockets to support the lawyers.  No sensible court would touch this one with an extra length barge pole.

The net result of this kind of case could easily result in SCOTUS ruling that God does not exist and that all religions are myths.  What happens then to the God-fearing U.S.A. is anybody's guess.

  Edited June 28, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

If the USA guts the Bill of Rights enough, I will vote with my feet to somewhere with similar beliefs as my own. I would rather live somewhere with fewer rights on paper but with the beliefs of the populace and government more aligned with my own. Italy, Spain, and Mexico now are more appealing to me than the major cities of the west coast. I pretend to my progressive friends that I want to return. The truth of the matter is that Seattle has changed farther than I like and is changing too fast for me to deal with.

--Ocram

 

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Wander about all you like. Marco.  In the end, you'll discover that there is no place like home.

[Meg 368]

. The truth of the matter is that Seattle has changed farther than I like and is changing too fast for me to deal with.

--Ocram

 

 

As the saying goes:  change comes in excruciating increments to those who want it and at break neck speed for those who don't.

The pendulum swings back and forth.   In the 60s, it swung to the left.  In the 80s, it swung to the right.  Now, it's swinging back to the left again.  In another 2 or 3 decades, it will swing back to the right.  It's just how it goes.

Over the past few days, I've seen several people say that they wished they lived in a theocracy.   I truly do not understand this.  Theocracies are, by nature, very oppressive.  Basically they are saying:  Act as our beliefs dictate or we will make your life miserable.  Why would anyone want to live like that?

Many of the problems in the world today exist because people want to live in a theocracy.   The garbage going on in the Middle East is one obvious example.  In the US, it is more subtle but still there.   There is a percentage of the population who believes the country should be run by biblical law.   I am glad to see public opinion and SCOTUS pushing back against this.   It is not what our country is about.  If the founding fathers wanted the country run according to biblical law, they would have written the Constitution that way.

 

 

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. I am moving to Pullman, WA in a matter of weeks to further my education.

2. I would be willing to work in Texas for years if it furthers my economic opportunity.

3. California is dying due to a number of factors including short-sighted environmentalism, improper allocation of funding (giving out oversized pensions to state workers while gutting education), and turning a blind eye to unethical business practices (see CNN's piece called "Sex, Drugs, and Silicon Valley" for more info). Many are fleeing California to here but it is a matter of time before our own state government kills its own golden goose.

4. What I like most about Seattle is the weather/climate, the greenery/parks/nature, restaurants (which I can no longer afford), and my family. There are other cities with better climates, more greenery, and a bigger variety of quality restaurants than here. Also, less than 1/2 of my family lives in this area. Almost 1/2 of my family lives in Jalisco. If home is where the heart is, Seattle is not my home. After witnessing too much stupidity here, I cannot find my heart here. I hope to find it in a mild and warm city with rich history and beautiful architecture.

5. Mexico and Italy are constitutional republics and Spain is a constitutional monarchy. I do not want to live in a theocracy or military dictatorship. I loathe theocracies and militarism.

 

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Given how often the question comes up, it's inevitable that at some point a same sex couple will file a lawsuit against a religious institution for refusing to marry them. There is indeed some sentiment out there in favor of enforcing anti-discrimination law against churches on matters like this, with the argument being that it's necessary in order bring about true equality. It's not a majority sentiment but it's there.

I think the question that should be asked here is what people would do if instead of a same sex couple wanting to get married but getting refused on religious ground, it was an interracial couple that gets refused on religious grounds. I think everyone but the biggest bigot in the country would agree that it would be absolutely unacceptable if churches could refuse to marry interracial couples and use religion as an excuse. But if that is the case, then there really does not exist an excuse that makes it okay to refuse same sex couples. 

Reversely, if you allow churches to refuse same sex couples, you must also allow churches to refuse to marry interracial couples. Indeed, then all forms of bigotry should be allowed as long as the bigot is a religious institution. 

And if you want to extend it to businesses, because you feel that business owners religious affiliation should grant them first amendment protection, well, just think back about interracial couples examples. And in business it would probably be worse, because then it would also open up the door for businesses refusing to serve Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Satanists or just about anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you. Is that something that should be legal? Or is that something that belonged in the first half of the last century? 

[Meg 368]

I think the question that should be asked here is what people would do if instead of a same sex couple wanting to get married but getting refused on religious ground, it was an interracial couple that gets refused on religious grounds. I think everyone but the biggest bigot in the country would agree that it would be absolutely unacceptable if churches could refuse to marry interracial couples and use religion as an excuse. But if that is the case, then there really does not exist an excuse that makes it okay to refuse same sex couples. 

 

Interesting comparison.   When I was a kid, churches didn't marry interracial couples because it was illegal.  As in against the law.  I remember when SCOTUS overturned the miscegenation laws and made it legal for races to intermarry.  Afterwards, there were plenty of churches that used religion as an excuse not to marry interracial couples.  

Personally, I think it's rather cool that you consider this to be obviously absolutely unacceptable.   It had been a matter of controversy through most of my lifetime.   There are plenty of people my age who found it "sickening" back then.  Most of those people are still around now.

I agree with you: religious belief is not an excuse for bigotry.  A religion that encourages bigotry is missing the point, imho.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I do not know how to quote on the updated site but that is fine.

@LexusInfernus, @Meg :  Bigotry is the intolerance of those with differing beliefs. By refusing to perform a religious ceremony on those who are not allowed to receive it according to the scripture/doctrine, no bigotry need be involved. Preaching hatred is different from refusing to do something against their beliefs and rules. One problem is that many progressives like to throw around the word "bigot" at everyone they disagree with while showing great intolerance to certain beliefs and those who hold them. That would make them (the progressives) the real bigots. Some priests refuse to perform the duties of marriage on people who they believe are unlikely to stay together. Some use metrics such as visible stability of relationships and knowledge or rumors of premarital sex (especially with exes). In the Catholic Church, it is perfectly acceptable to deny matrimony to even heterosexual couples in the church if the priest has reason to believe the marriage will turn out bad. Of course divorce and remarriage are completely out of the question and those who pursue new relationships after divorce are sooner excommunicated than blessed or allowed a second marriage in the church. Even widower deacons can be denied to remarry widows (they are supposed to write a letter to the Vatican first and might need to give up their positions in order to remarry). I think it is perfectly acceptable for churches to deny marriage to candidates that do not qualify according to the rules. I think it is a better idea to convert than try to change the rules. Those that break the rules and try to change them are heretics by definition and the church can condemn and excommunicate them. I think it is uncool to be intolerant to tradition and religion and to spew hatred at those who hold traditional or religious beliefs.

As a teenager, I grew more progressive but as I have seen the negative impact of some so-called progressive laws and movements, I have changed my opinions from supporting of many ideals and policies to disagreeing with some of them more than I ever have before in my life. I have always wanted what was best for the most to happen and lamented every time a small group made things worse off for everyone else. It was usually the wealthy elites that were the ones doing the harm but now, there are other groups that use propaganda to make those that would be negatively impacted to actively support their movements. I now consider myself a utilitarian libertarian. This means I only support changes that increase freedom and liberty and/or improve the situation for the most citizens.

 

Respectfully,

---Ocram

[Nesral Sredna 62]

Indeed, it is up to the church to decide its ceremonial doctrines. Why the must to marry in a church that don't want it? You do not go to an Elvis Wedding Chapel and tell the lookalike to play Metallica, would you?

  Edited June 28, 2015 by Nesral Sredna  

[Meg 368]

 

Some priests refuse to perform the duties of marriage on people who they believe are unlikely to stay together. Some use metrics such as visible stability of relationships and knowledge or rumors of premarital sex (especially with exes). In the Catholic Church, it is perfectly acceptable to deny matrimony to even heterosexual couples in the church if the priest has reason to believe the marriage will turn out bad. 

 

True.   Many churches, and I know the Catholic Church is one of them, have forms of pre-marital counseling or classes to complete.   I know of a case where the priest told a couple that they weren't ready, their marriage wasn't going to last, and they would be better off marrying outside the church so that they could save the church wedding for their "real" marriages which would be to other people.  He almost refused to perform the wedding but eventually did.    (He was right, btw.)

Anyway, the point is you are correct:   churches have their own criteria for who they will marry.  Some are strict about it, others not to much.   I've known couples who "shopped around" until they found some form of clergy who will marry them.

After this week's ruling, churches might think about how they want to handle the issue.   I imagine some churches will refuse and other will say sure, we need the business.  They will need to decide what kind of congregation they want to have and what kind of church they want to be.  

But that has always been the case.  (You want to talk about being a kid in the Catholic church during the beginning of the Vatican II reforms?  If so, we'll have to move this conversation over to the religion thread.)

 

 Of course divorce and remarriage are completely out of the question and those who pursue new relationships after divorce are sooner excommunicated than blessed or allowed a second marriage in the church.

 

Not usually.  All it takes is a $500 donation to the archdiocese and the first marriage magically goes away from the eyes of the church.   The rate might have gone up.  I've known several couples who have done this but it has been a while.

 

 I think it is uncool to be intolerant to tradition and religion and to spew hatred at those who hold traditional or religious beliefs.

 

I think it's uncool to hate anything.   Hatred leads to the dark side.   I cannot agree with Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is a "time to hate".  Hatred is negative energy and no good can come from it.

Being intolerant to tradition is a different issue.  Many traditions are wrong, hurtful, and offensive and there is no good reason for continuing them.  (Example:  "Washington Redskins".)   Just because something has always been done that way doesn't mean that the way it should always be done.

Back in my university days, I had the privilege of listing to Admiral Grace Hopper speak.  Among other things, she was a pioneer in the computing field.   She said that any time we said "But we've always done it that way" her ghost would stand on one of our shoulders and whack us on the ear with a rolled up newspaper.   We all laughed but that has stuck with me.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

OK, let's take my parents as an example:  My father was a member of the United Church of Canada and my mother was a Roman Catholic.  They went to all the Catholic counselling sessions and were finally married, not in the church proper, but in the sacristy after my father agreed that any children would be brought up in the church.  This was in 1936.  I sincerely doubt anything has changed with respect to this sort of "mixed" marriage in the RC church.

My wife and I were married by a Salvation Army minister after counselling sessions.  Essentially it was a civil ceremony in a nice auditorium.  Times change, and I am no longer religious at all and neither was my wife.  If my kids have any religious affiliation, I don't know this.

On the other hand, my sister has recently returned to the Catholic Church after a long hiatus. 

Religion is personal, and none of the state's business at any level.  Courts should all be mute on this.

Religious institutions make their own rules for "civil" behaviour, and they are often at variance with the "common" law.  Getting science past dogma is always a challenge.  One only has to look at the case of one Gallileo Gallilei to get a picture of the imperviousness of dogma to the facts.  "Eppur si muove."

  Edited June 29, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
Fixing typos.

[Sabretooth78 808]

If the USA guts the Bill of Rights enough, I will vote with my feet to somewhere with similar beliefs as my own. I would rather live somewhere with fewer rights on paper but with the beliefs of the populace and government more aligned with my own. Italy, Spain, and Mexico now are more appealing to me than the major cities of the west coast. I pretend to my progressive friends that I want to return. The truth of the matter is that Seattle has changed farther than I like and is changing too fast for me to deal with.

--Ocram

I've recently realized that I'm already mentally out the door and my feet are just lagging.  I like the idea of hunkering down and fighting the fight but she's too far gone.  You can't fix stupid and stupid controls things.  Case in point, next year at this time we'll be gearing up to choose between Hilary and some GOP establishment clown and one of them will win.  Seeing the win as a mandate (especially if control "changes"), the "party" in control will then push "their" agenda and the country will take another lurch toward the 3rd world.  Happens every time.

The only thing I have left to do is determine the where and when.  Interestingly, I had the same vibe when I lived in New Hampshire - "I really like this place...in some other time now gone."

  Edited June 29, 2015 by Sabretooth78  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Sabretooth78:  Well, it isn't far from Western New York across either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, or even across the Niagara (there are bridges).  We've found ex-pat Americans fit in quite well in our culture once you get over hearing all those drums beating.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Canada is always the "safety" choice, especially for those living in the US "inland north", that's for sure.  Question is, how much will its proximity hurt it when the US finally goes supernova?  Or will they be in a position to capitalize?  (Where will all the Southern Ontarians shop and dispose of their old clothes?)

Speaking of, I need to head over one of these days as I'm running out of Smarties.  Getting off-topic...

[metarvo 711]

Canada certainly is tempting to me, due to the relative similarity to the US as far as creature comforts go, as well as the proximity and the weather.  Yes, you heard me right: the weather.  I get tired of the heat I deal with here every summer.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

If the USA guts the Bill of Rights enough, I will vote with my feet to somewhere with similar beliefs as my own. I would rather live somewhere with fewer rights on paper but with the beliefs of the populace and government more aligned with my own. Italy, Spain, and Mexico now are more appealing to me than the major cities of the west coast. I pretend to my progressive friends that I want to return. The truth of the matter is that Seattle has changed farther than I like and is changing too fast for me to deal with.

--Ocram

I've recently realized that I'm already mentally out the door and my feet are just lagging.  I like the idea of hunkering down and fighting the fight but she's too far gone.  You can't fix stupid and stupid controls things.  Case in point, next year at this time we'll be gearing up to choose between Hilary and some GOP establishment clown and one of them will win.  Seeing the win as a mandate (especially if control "changes"), the "party" in control will then push "their" agenda and the country will take another lurch toward the 3rd world.  Happens every time.

The only thing I have left to do is determine the where and when.  Interestingly, I had the same vibe when I lived in New Hampshire - "I really like this place...in some other time now gone."

So what is it specifically that you think is wrong with the US? Every American will have a few, but what are yours?

[Duke87 1,070]

I think the question that should be asked here is what people would do if instead of a same sex couple wanting to get married but getting refused on religious ground, it was an interracial couple that gets refused on religious grounds. I think everyone but the biggest bigot in the country would agree that it would be absolutely unacceptable if churches could refuse to marry interracial couples and use religion as an excuse. But if that is the case, then there really does not exist an excuse that makes it okay to refuse same sex couples. 

Reversely, if you allow churches to refuse same sex couples, you must also allow churches to refuse to marry interracial couples. Indeed, then all forms of bigotry should be allowed as long as the bigot is a religious institution.

It's tempting to say interracial marriage and same sex marriage are analogous matters although there are some key differences which throw a wrench or two into that.

Not the least of which is that most major world religions are older than the concept of race is. The idea of sorting people into groups based on skin color didn't come about until Europeans started colonizing places on other continents and needed a convenient excuse to justify killing and/or exploiting the natives. So using religion to defend racism is illogical because any theological arguments in favor of it are all going to be blatantly post hoc. Any bible passages seemingly justifying racism are being misinterpreted since race did not exist when they were written.

Homosexuality? Well, that's a different story. The Bible says some things which unambiguously address that. The whole "one man, one woman" definition of marriage is well rooted in many major religions and existed prior to those religions being founded. So, same sex marriages screw with the core principles of many religions a lot more than interracial marriages ever did.

 

As for the idea of trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages, well, if that's going to happen then the war on Christianity is real and there's no use denying it. Consider this - at stake in the SCOTUS ruling is only the legal institution of marriage, not the religious institution of it. As things stand, you must obtain a marriage license from your local clerical office even if you intend to get married in a church. From a legal perspective, the church merely performs the ceremony - the certificate goes on file with the clerk all the same regardless of what kind of ceremony occurs.

What this means is that in effect there is a finite number of places where anyone in the US can obtain a marriage in the legal sense, and all of them are government offices. If a church refuses to marry a couple, it merely impacts where they can have a ceremony. It has ZERO impact on the availability of (legal) marriage to them.

So if marriage itself is the issue at stake, there is nothing to be gained from fighting the churches on this. Fighting the churches would purely be a culture war, aimed at stamping out any opposition to societal acceptance of homosexuality. Which, as we've learned with racism (bringing this post interestingly full circle) doesn't work because silencing opposition doesn't make it go away, it merely forces the opponents to keep their mouths shut or face being ostracized. If we tell churches they can't refuse homosexuality, we don't eliminate homophobia, we merely force all the homophobes into the closet... which is arguably worse than having them in the open since it will color their opinions and their decision making all the same either way, but it's a lot more difficult to detect if they deny it.

Methinks, at this point, the LGBT community would be best served by obtaining acceptance through showing the world that they aren't a threat to anyone. NOT by actively fighting organized religions, thus showing the world exactly the opposite, that they ARE a threat to anyone who wishes to worship in a manor that is unfavorable to them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Anti-vaccine nuts get setback in CA.

Gov. Brown says it all in his statement.  Science trumps religion.  (Facts over mythology.)

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

It's tempting to say interracial marriage and same sex marriage are analogous matters although there are some key differences which throw a wrench or two into that.

Not the least of which is that most major world religions are older than the concept of race is. The idea of sorting people into groups based on skin color didn't come about until Europeans started colonizing places on other continents and needed a convenient excuse to justify killing and/or exploiting the natives. So using religion to defend racism is illogical because any theological arguments in favor of it are all going to be blatantly post hoc. Any bible passages seemingly justifying racism are being misinterpreted since race did not exist when they were written.

Homosexuality? Well, that's a different story. The Bible says some things which unambiguously address that. The whole "one man, one woman" definition of marriage is well rooted in many major religions and existed prior to those religions being founded. So, same sex marriages screw with the core principles of many religions a lot more than interracial marriages ever did.

I don't think your argument here really works. I mean, I agree with you that from a purely theological perspective, the bible does not provide any justification for this kind of racism. 

But at the same time, religion is more than what the bible says. And religion has a long history of justifying racism. Slavery was defended by churches and preachers under the idea that black people where made by God as inferior and meant to serve white people. One cannot deny that racism and religion in some places go hand in hand. And legally, well what you suggest would be impossible to uphold in court. At the one hand it would require the court to start interpreting religious texts, with as end result telling one group of people that their traditional religious bigotry, of which they have a long and well documented history, is not protected under the first amendment, while another group of peoples traditional religious bigotry is protected under the first amendment. 

Furthermore, even biblical opposition against same sex marriage is based on shaky grounds. For one, the bible never explicitly bans same sex marriage, on same sex sexual relations. And two, the institution of marriage is never really defined in the bible as such. There are some verses that some interpret as meaning marriage, but that is just as post hoc of an argument as the arguments of the bible supporting racism.  

 

As for the idea of trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages, well, if that's going to happen then the war on Christianity is real and there's no use denying it. Consider this - at stake in the SCOTUS ruling is only the legal institution of marriage, not the religious institution of it. As things stand, you must obtain a marriage license from your local clerical office even if you intend to get married in a church. From a legal perspective, the church merely performs the ceremony - the certificate goes on file with the clerk all the same regardless of what kind of ceremony occurs.

What this means is that in effect there is a finite number of places where anyone in the US can obtain a marriage in the legal sense, and all of them are government offices. If a church refuses to marry a couple, it merely impacts where they can have a ceremony. It has ZERO impact on the availability of (legal) marriage to them.

So if marriage itself is the issue at stake, there is nothing to be gained from fighting the churches on this. Fighting the churches would purely be a culture war, aimed at stamping out any opposition to societal acceptance of homosexuality. Which, as we've learned with racism (bringing this post interestingly full circle) doesn't work because silencing opposition doesn't make it go away, it merely forces the opponents to keep their mouths shut or face being ostracized. If we tell churches they can't refuse homosexuality, we don't eliminate homophobia, we merely force all the homophobes into the closet... which is arguably worse than having them in the open since it will color their opinions and their decision making all the same either way, but it's a lot more difficult to detect if they deny it.

Methinks, at this point, the LGBT community would be best served by obtaining acceptance through showing the world that they aren't a threat to anyone. NOT by actively fighting organized religions, thus showing the world exactly the opposite, that they ARE a threat to anyone who wishes to worship in a manor that is unfavorable to them.

Well I agree, the government shouldn't try to force churches to marry gay people. But that is not the problem. The real problem is businesses and their right to discriminate against gay people. 10 years ago, the notion that businesses could do such a thing would have been absurd, but thanks to the hobby lobby ruling, the SCOTUS has also paved the way for businesses to do just this. Remember how they ruled that businesses owners religious affiliation may be reflected in the way they run their business? How Hobby Lobby could avoid paying for certain contraceptives/abortificants because that supposedly went against the religious convictions of the owners of Hobby Lobby? It's just one tiny step for some business owner to go to the court and argue that based on the Hobby Lobby ruling, they should have the right to refuse to serve people because of their religious convictions. I mean, this will have to come before the SCOTUS first, but I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the SCOTUS ruled in such a business owners favor. 

And what then? It would essentially legalize bigotry based on religious convictions for businesses. And how long until somewhere some cake baker decides that he does not want to bake a bridal cake for a interracial bridal pair because that offends his religious sensibilities? How long before some store decides to no longer sell to Muslims because the store owners are fundamentalist Christians? 

 

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

So what is it specifically that you think is wrong with the US? Every American will have a few, but what are yours?

It's tough to pin it down, so a lot of little reasons I suppose.  The biggest is probably the growing police state.  That is outright dangerous.  Overall I feel there's just this endemic culture of malaise and passive acceptance of negative change.  We're too comfortable and it seems as if nobody thinks critically anymore.  I often wonder what it's going to take to wake these people up - right now my current belief is that it'll occur when interstate travel is monitored/restricted.  It'll happen, and it'll be at odds with a quintessential facet of American culture - the love of cars and the open road (and the "freedom" it apparently symbolizes).

One thing I can remember from grade school (you know, before you're really old enough to start forming your own opinions) was coming out with this general belief of everything this country does being righteous, it's a free country (notice nobody seems to say that any more?), yada, yada, yada.  I wonder if they still push that whole agenda nowadays in the face of most if not all major studies consistently showing a slippage in rankings of political and economic freedom?  For instance, Canada is kicking the proverbial s**t out of us (as much as they like to bash their own version of G.W. Obama in Harper) and they're not alone.

Now just to disclaim what I said (both here and previously), I'm not actively considering abandoning ship but I would be lying if I said it wasn't in the back of my mind quite a bit.  If and when the time is right I will act upon it.  I can't say I'm unhappy now because I'm not, but if we ever feel that balance has shifted we owe it to ourselves to act upon it (or at least evaluate acting on it).

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

(Call me cynical, but most people who put those "freedom isn't free" bumper stickers on their car probably think the answer involves bombing somebody in the Middle East.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As an outside observer, I tend to agree that there is a tendency towards a police state.  We are having a similar problem with "carding" on the streets of Toronto and some of the other large cities where a cop can ask for your ID without any reason.  This has echoes of the Gestapo swooping upon some citizen of Germany in the 1933-1945 time frame demanding to see "papers".

I think a lot of this is caused by frightened, incompetent and ignorant legislators who are far too parochial to be in any legislature.  Some of the knee-jerk security laws are poor at best, and foolishly bad at worst.  And, of course, if the leadership is afraid, this contagion spreads to the public, usually through the captive press.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Seriously, considering the state of American politics, it was incredibly tough to decide to leave Japan.  Japan provides low-cost, effective health care to everyone based upon income, has no national income tax (although there is an 8% consumption tax on EVERYTHING that they want to raise to 10%), and people generally seem to care about their role in society.  You should see the construction crews work, they are amazing.  Only the delivery companies are friendlier and more efficient.  I think, though, that one of the keys to Japanese success is that they don't have the American ideal of individuality, which I've come to regard as absolutely insane.  The "individuals" at the top continually talk about how they worked themselves to the bone to get where they are, that they did it by themselves, they lifted their own bootstraps up and worked hard and the people who can't do it are lazy or blah blah blah.  It doesn't work that way in reality.  Those "individuals" had teachers who taught them, they have police officers who serve to protect their stuff, they have all the workers who provide them resources with which they do business, and they have their own workers who help them run their businesses and they have their customers/clients who give them money.  People all have roles to play in society, someone saying that they succeeded all by themselves without any help from anyone else is ignorance on a stunning scale that I would wager is one of the most horrible unique aspects of American culture.  NOBODY does it by him or herself.  We're all in this together, and until our leaders realize this, or we have a cultural shift that forces our leaders to recognize this, the "individuals" at the top are going to prey on what's left of America's greatness until it's all gone and then we can take George Carlin's advice and sit back and relax and enjoy the show as everything crumbles around us.  I'll be in Upper Michigan, it should be a fairly safe place to watch it happen, if it even does in my lifetime.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I agree and disagree with your view on individualism.  I think it's a good thing in and of itself and I think you need a certain degree of it to keep "tyranny" at bay.  People are different and there's nothing wrong with that - so long as it doesn't infringe on the life and property of others  -  and to that I'll add so long as I'm not forced to observe and/or cater to it should I not want to.  It needs to cut both ways.

I do agree with the point you're trying to make about it, though.  Note that those who say those things tend to represent the scum the floated to the top and is actively trying to rig the game to protect their standing.  But while I agree that we have fewer "self-made" people, probably dating back to before WWII, there is the consideration that there has been "inflation" in the baseline thanks to the progress of civilization.  It's a little disingenuous to take that away from somebody who does it now just by accident of not having been born 100 years prior.

Where this country doesn't have enough individualism is in a mental sense.  As I alluded to earlier, we all claim to hate socialism but we loooove socialized thought.  Can't get enough of it.  There is a definite dearth of free thinkers, at least those making any noise.  I also think the concept of individualism is a bit lost on people judging by how most of the people who consider themselves to be such are all basically the same.

And yeah, this area does afford some pretty good seats.  Where I won't want to be at that time is in the southwest.  There will probably be a few good things to say about Baghdad around then.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Again as a foreign observer:  Folks, we have as much individualism as the U.S. does, but we don't do so much crowing about it.  The culture south of the border is closed (don't try to convince me with facts, my mind is made up), and the racial profiles are set in concrete made from the ash of Mount St. Helens which means, like the Coliseum in Rome, it will last for thousands of years.  War on this, war on that, always war.  What on earth is the matter with the people?  Don't they understand that nobody wins a war?

[Sabretooth78 808]

"Did you ever notice that about us? We love to declare war on things here in America. Anything we don’t like about ourselves, we declare war on it, we don’t do anything about it, we just declare war on it. It’s the only metaphor, the only metaphor we have in our public discourse for solving problems: declaring war. We have to declare a war on everything; we have a war on crime, the war on poverty, the war on litter, the war on cancer, the war on drugs, but did you ever notice we got no war on homelessness? Huh? No war on homelessness... you know why? There’s no money in that problem, no money to be made off of the homeless. If you can find a solution to homelessness where the corporate swine and the politicians could steal a couple of million dollars each, you’ll see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty godd--n quick, I’ll guarantee you that!" - George Carlin

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Yeah, I was thinking about my post and I wondered if I came across as too much of a collectivist, because I'm really not.  Collectivism taken to its extreme (communism/Maoism/Stalinism etc) hasn't worked out very well, either.  Part of it is just the biggest weakness of humanity: we only get worked up enough to act on anything if it's taken to the extreme.  "Those other guys are monsters for thinking that!  They want to destroy us all!  LET'S KILL 'EM!"  Moderation doesn't get people frothing at the mouth for change, because most of us are pretty much operating on an all-or-nothing mentality.  Moderation, taking a little from either side to try to build a better society, just isn't an effective message when our biology is telling us to kill those 'others' before they kill us.  So anyways, while I do stand by what I wrote, I will temper it by saying that going in the extreme opposite direction would be just as massive a mistake.  Making us all the same when we're so obviously not is just as bad as this mindless, uncritical, individualistic mess we have now.  There are other answers besides either end of the spectrum.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

To properly choose the middle way, you first have to get rid of the jingoism that infects the national psyche of America.  One of the ways to start is to stop reciting the pledge of allegiance at the drop of a hat.  We only do that during citizenship ceremonies.  Every time the pledge is recited one moves further to the right.  Seek the middle way.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

 

So what is it specifically that you think is wrong with the US? Every American will have a few, but what are yours?

It's tough to pin it down, so a lot of little reasons I suppose.  The biggest is probably the growing police state.  That is outright dangerous.  Overall I feel there's just this endemic culture of malaise and passive acceptance of negative change.  We're too comfortable and it seems as if nobody thinks critically anymore.  I often wonder what it's going to take to wake these people up - right now my current belief is that it'll occur when interstate travel is monitored/restricted.  It'll happen, and it'll be at odds with a quintessential facet of American culture - the love of cars and the open road (and the "freedom" it apparently symbolizes).

One thing I can remember from grade school (you know, before you're really old enough to start forming your own opinions) was coming out with this general belief of everything this country does being righteous, it's a free country (notice nobody seems to say that any more?), yada, yada, yada.  I wonder if they still push that whole agenda nowadays in the face of most if not all major studies consistently showing a slippage in rankings of political and economic freedom?  For instance, Canada is kicking the proverbial s**t out of us (as much as they like to bash their own version of G.W. Obama in Harper) and they're not alone.

Now just to disclaim what I said (both here and previously), I'm not actively considering abandoning ship but I would be lying if I said it wasn't in the back of my mind quite a bit.  If and when the time is right I will act upon it.  I can't say I'm unhappy now because I'm not, but if we ever feel that balance has shifted we owe it to ourselves to act upon it (or at least evaluate acting on it).

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

(Call me cynical, but most people who put those "freedom isn't free" bumper stickers on their car probably think the answer involves bombing somebody in the Middle East.)

So for example you don't like that miles inward from the Mexican border, border patrol has checkpoints where they don't actually have any authority but still insist on pulling people over, asking questions, and searching cars, and detaining people?

Or you don't like that police departments have become militarized?

You don't think military intervention is the go to solution for every problem?

You don't like right wing bumper stickers and are skeptical of right leaning symbols like cars and the open road?

All this stuff lands you pretty squarely into the democratic camp. Have you ever actually voted for a republican presidential candidate?

And the point that I'm getting at is that despite this being one of the most politically and culturally polarized periods of american history, and despite you not liking the same stuff that a lot of democrats don't like, you're saying that both parties are the same and that you don't belong to either?

You don't like the grade school narrative that america is free and righteous? Despite the fact that most of our military interventions have supported the bad guys, or have at least been terrible mistakes? Or that most of the first americans weren't friends with the native americans and essentially committed genocide against them over a long period of time? I remember even MLK was framed positively, America is great because MLK is great and America solved racism. uh oh! it sounds like you're a godless anti-american commie who any second now will go on an "apology tour". You should be imprisoned for treason for making america look weak!!!!

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The worst of it is America is weak.  Despite all the bluster, all that has really happened lately is taken from Teddy Roosevelt.  "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." 

Because of some improper horn blowing, like the Republican Party playing at international politics by inviting BiBi without sanction from the State Department, America is looking divided internationally when it should be presenting a united front.  The G.O.P. deserves a large kick in the private parts for stepping on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.

Some, if not all, of the middle east adventures that America has engaged in, covert and otherwise, have turned out to be an opportunity for creation of insurgent factions many of whom believe the world should still be operating in the era of the Prophet when life was short, dark and ugly as well as illiterate and ignorant.

In order to support the Israelis, who are members of the nuclear club, the U.S. has been moving heaven and earth to try to prevent any other middle eastern power from joining that club, notably Iran.  It is all very well to dislike religious dictatorships, but you slide a lot further on feces than you can on sandpaper.  U.S. diplomacy has a lot to answer for.  It is almost as bad as the Brits when they had control of the region.  Too much footsie is being played with the Saudis who were nothing before they were set up by the Brits in the 1920s.  Various western powers have really screwed up things around the Mediterranean since about 1900, and all America has done is continue stirring the pot.

Scratch the average American and you'll find an isolationist who couldn't give a plugged nickel for what's happening outside his state, let alone outside the country.

  Edited July 4, 2015 by A Nonny Moose