Evolution/Creation Debate in the U.S.

Factual Questions
21

TVeblen:

Not yet. Maybe not ever. But they are dying from hate over abortion. And the fundamental underpinnings to the two issues are related, as are some of the ‘activist’ groups.
Abe:

DID impeach, and for the first time in history, though did not convict.

Axel Wheeler suggests another part of the answer, I think, when he brings marketing into the picture. As far as I can tell, no other nation/culture has yet (though many are not far behind, anymore; can you say “cultural transmission?”) developed its marketing technology&culture to the extent the USofA has. I mean thereby not only the technology (how to put together an attention-grabbing campaign, a 30-second spot, a glossy print page, a media network for carrying said campaign) but also the cultural acceptance concerning marketing in general. It seems that nowhere in the world do people accept marketing into their lives and consciousnesses with quite the relish Americans do; or to put it another way, we still lead the world in unquestioning Consumerism.

Maybe that applies to religion, as well? Maybe Canadians, and Europeans for that matter, are somewhat more reluctant to be spoon-fed The Answers? (It wouldn’t have to be too large a difference…) Maybe they stop and ask ‘Why?’ before charging into action?

Or maybe it comes down to Quality of Life issues. The US has the world’s highest per-capita income, but one of the lowest qualities-of-life in the industrialized world. (Caveat: measuring of QoL would seem highly subject to influence by the observer’s belief system; that is, it may be easy to get the answers one wants.) So that’s an emotional hole that needs to be filled - and religions DO purport to have the answers. Maybe Canadians are just happier, and so don’t have to grab at the whole bag religion holds out to them…

22

David,

I’m a bit puzzled by your statement:

President Andrew Johnson was impeached, and acquitted by the Senate. Or did you mean the first time an elected President was impeached?

I would disagree with those who argue that the impeachment of President Clinton showed that the U.S. is not politically stable. In fact, I reach the opposite conclusion: the fact that a President might be removed from office over sexual harassment, coupled with perjury, shows a very stable and sophisticated democracy - one that has so much confidence in its own institutions that it can afford to take this step.

23

D’oh! Uh, yeah, that’s it. In fact, I was being more precise than that, even. Impeached a President ELECTED FOR A SECOND TIME for the first time in history - that’s what I meant. (What’s that sound? Is that my credibility going down the drain?) Or maybe we could redefine “history” to the more precise “in the 20th century…”

Interesting point… Yes, it would seem likely that, were the government (cf. all three branches) so shaky that the parties involved truly believed the whole thing would dissolve into chaos upon impeachment/conviction, then they might refrain from taking that chance. That would speak to stability (or at least to PERCEIVED stability, as in “things are good enough here that we can stop building and start fighting over the spoils…”). But sophistication? I think that Abe was referring to the feeling a number of us here have - and which was reinforced by that episode - that the government was long ago hijacked by a bunch of short-sighted, selfish children (admittedly big ones in suits, but emotionally children nonetheless) who consistently demonstrate a lack of higher understanding. The apparent process of legislation-by-popularity-poll which seems to go on here reinforces such feelings - especially with regard to the topic of your original post.

Another element to add to the pot: American self-righteousness. The U.S. seems to lead the world in the “I know better, and I’m going to convert you, one way or another” department. (And that is true far beyond the realm of religion.) We seem to have come to lack tolerance for competing opinions and world views.

Canada, for all that it is a melting pot now, wasn’t so much of one say 75 years ago. (I spent the 70s in Alberta, and the three major targets of intolerance I remember were all popularly perceived as being outside the majority culture: native peoples, Ukrainians (Canada’s “Polacks?”), and the newly arrived “Pakis,” or Pakistani immigrants. What do you think, jti - if the “American” necessity to convert others to one’s beliefs is in some measure an outgrowth from the process of nation- or consensus-building (that is, the “need” to process all comers and turn them into “Americans”) might Canada be starting on the same road? Perhaps the answer to your question is partly one of catching the two nations at different points of similar histories? I have an acquaintance, Taiwanese-born mainland-descended Han-Chinese who immigrated to B.C., who very quickly seemed to pick up a very real, very bitter enmity towards Quebec and the Quebecois. Admittedly she is a bigot in other areas, so maybe she is susceptible to that sort of message, but it still struck me as strange - why be ANGRY about that (to her, very new) issue, unless she was indoctrinated or otherwise heavily influenced? She had to pick it up somewhere, even if passively, but somehow she became very “pro-Canada.” IF this is indicative of similar-to-the-U.S. processes of immigrant-absorption, then perhaps 50 years down the road Canadians too will feel comfortable in forcing their opinions on others? If not in the area of religion, perhaps somewhere else? In fact, maybe careful observation would reveal something of the sort even today… (Just speculating.)