a conservative america in the context of global society and culture

[kobayashi]

so the american people have democratically selected republican representation in both the executive and legislative houses. soon enough, by many accounts, it seems the judiciary branch will tip toward similarly conservative perspectives.

while we are all aware of the war on terror and its associated offspring, what of the cultural implications for america?

what of the cultural implications for an america amidst many other developed nations who exhibit much more liberal ideologies?

to provide an example, consider a story from todays globe and mail (sorry i cant provide a direct link)

They're calling it the gay drain. Hundreds of well-heeled gay and lesbian lawyers, professors, educators and film directors from the U.S. are immigrating to Canada, drawn by the country's recognition of same-sex rights, unions and benefits.
...
While some gay Americans applied to immigrate before the Nov.
2 election, the results only reinforced their determination
to leave. Mr. Bush has again indicated he would support a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage. Eleven states, including
Ohio, Michigan and Oregon, voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage,
in balloting held at the same time as the election. Ohio also
banned civil unions.
...
Tim Sally, a 47-year-old real-estate investor from the gay-friendly
city of San Francisco, said he is tired of living in a country
that won't accord him the same rights as heterosexuals. He worries
that the U.S. conservative political discourse has no place
for gay liberals, even wealthy and talented ones, who no longer
feel welcome in their own country.

now i dont mean to propose that these 'hundreds' of gay americans considering a move to canada will represent a serious impact to america. but what if this happens for various small groups, disenfranchised by the conservativism we expect to see in the next few years?

i would suggest, at the very least, that tolerance of homosexuals will not progress and may even be harmed in america.

taken further, new norms may be established in terms of personal privacy, the importance of religion (namely christianity), education (particularly post secondary), tolerance of alternative global views and a host of others.

depending on your perspective, these new norms might be better or worse than the traditional. but, it seems apparent to me that these same norms might paint america on a cultural island relative to the rest of the developed world.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Gay marriage is asking for another 9/11 because it should never be an issue that represents our country. It's unnatural, God didn't design men for men and vise versa.

 

[strannix]

I can understand the concern that these folks have, but I think they're being a bit hasty. Congress tried to pass the DMA a few months ago, and got nowhere. If it can't even get outside of Congress, it's not going to pass 75% of the states. There are real issues affecting gay folks, but the DMA is not one of them.

Secondly, I think post-election analysis has rather conclusively shown that "values" did not play as large a role as originally thought. The GOP is in for quite a rude surprise if they overreach with the hellfire and brimstone. Their position is somewhat precarious already; as much as they like to present this win as a crushing defeat of all things Democratic, the winning margin was only 3%. And Dems have made great strides at the local level in several red states in the last few years, like VA, NC, CO, and MT(!), and swing states like MN, NM and NH.

Imagine, just a year ago everyone thought Howard Dean was nuts for supporting civil unions. But yet, just a week before the election, the "family values" President found it necessary to announce his support for them, too. Full rights for gays and lesbians are inevitable in this country, and I don't think it will take that long for it to happen.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Gay marriage is asking for another 9/11 because it should never be an issue that represents our country. It's unnatural, God didn't design men for men and vise versa.

Is this the Jerry Falwell approach? 9/11 happened because of gays, pro-choice activists and anyone who's not a Christian fundamentalist?



BTW, homophobia (ie gay people are 'unnatural') isn't welcome here, as I'm sure you'll soon find out.

 

[Dreadsox]

Gay marriage is asking for another 9/11 because it should never be an issue that represents our country. It's unnatural, God didn't design men for men and vise versa.

So did God screw up?

What in the world would bring you to the conclusion that 9/11 is even remotely related to 9/11?

 

[Souly]

to provide an example, consider a story from todays globe and mail (sorry i cant provide a direct link)

What was the title of the article?

 

[kobayashi]

the title of the article is...

Dispirited U.S. gays choosing Canada

i grabbed it off my corporate intranet-we get text versions of several major dailies.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Gay marriage is asking for another 9/11 because it should never be an issue that represents our country. It's unnatural, God didn't design men for men and vise versa.

please don't insult the memory of those who died on 9/11 with more of this drivel. stupidly blaming one segment of the population for the problems of a nation only leads to bad things... just ask germany.

-sincerly,
republican catholic who voted for bush.



i for one support gay marrage/civil union... whatever you wanna call it. but i understand that many people in the US don't. frankly, i think that the acts of those in san francisco.. the "we know you're not gonna like it but we're gonna get married anyway so deal with it" crowd actually hurt their cause rather than help it... because, frankly, many people did deal with it... to the point where gay marrage is now officially banned in 22% of the nation.

 

[Souly]

the title of the article is...


i grabbed it off my corporate intranet-we get text versions of several major dailies.

Thank you

 

[Earnie Shavers]

In the wake of the US election there have been a bunch of articles about "how to deal with such a conservative America" in a couple of the newspapers here (Australia) and they've been really interesting. One good one basically described the US in general as the least 'foreign' nation in the world, due to the reach of US culture (film, music, tv, brands etc), however the conservative/right/republican side of the US is definitely very 'foreign' to most of the rest of the world - can't understand that thinking, culture etc.

Most of the world previously had just put it down to a small group in power, in the media and on the ground who had a much larger influence than their beliefs, but the election showed that, well, it's 52% of the country and the US is now looking like quite the different beast, and guessing the US' moves and motives now requires completely different thinking.

It's all very interesting.

 

[Sherry Darling]

So did God screw up?

sd

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Actually, Diamond has just given me an example in another thread, the one about the possible new US Attorney General. It describes a guy who appears to be one conservative, cold blooded mofo that Bush may be putting into the position. Now, pre US election 'the world' would read about that and say "well what would you expect from the Bush Admin, they're backwards conservatives etc" but NOW post election, you have a comment like Diamonds in that thread ("i dont understand why the Dems reject the will of the ppl.") and that's what the world is trying to understand. It does appear to be the will of the (slight) majority of Americans. It's a whole other entity, and it will greatly, greatly influence the world over the next four years.

 

[verte76]

I'm an artist and I'm wondering about some of the implications for us. Maybe it's far-fetched, but I don't know. What about politically themed art? What about possible censorship controversies? My avatar is faintly politically themed. It's a protest against the terrorist horrors in Istanbul last year. I'm fascinated with Istanbul and it really hurt when it was bombed. I did the painting in four days, which is unusually fast for an acrylic painting for me. Most of my art is more fantasy themed and avoids controversy, because I naturally am not all that fond of controversy. I don't expect to be impacted personally but I wonder about art in the U.S. and what's going to happen in general.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

please don't insult the memory of those who died on 9/11 with more of this drivel. stupidly blaming one segment of the population for the problems of a nation only leads to bad things... just ask germany.

-sincerly,
republican catholic who voted for bush.

I would never mean anything to insult 9/11 victims, war victims, etc... My point was that for some reason, terrorists find the USA to be a godless society, and unfortunately, all they see in this country is how we demoralize our women with hip hop culture, flaunt the worst of us on reality TV, and elsewhere. We should make an effort to prevent them from being so angry at us, and I've always found that our culture strikes a chord with them.

 

[pax]

Yes, but stating outright that allowing gay unions/marriage would cause another 9/11 is, if not deliberate fearmongering, a wee bit irresponsible at best.

 

[U2democrat]

Terrorists are going to hate us whether we allow gay marriage or not

I'll keep my tongue bit on some of the attitudes towards gays in here so not to start a theological discussion on the morality of homosexuality.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think you're right about the terrorists hating us whether or not we allow it. Personally, I would like to see a reform before our society goes even further out of hand, and I refer to a number of issues.

 

[MadelynIris]

U2Dem,

I kinda would like to start a theological discussion on the morality of homosexual.

Wanna?

I'm afraid that I'll get banned as a homophobe though, because I don't believe it is a lifestyle that should be celebrated. And apparently anyone that has this belief in FYM is considered a homophobe (not sure why).

Mark

 

[verte76]

Can I get into this? People who think that homosexuality is wrong are simply from the school of thought that marriage is strictly for procreation. This is the traditional Judaeo-Christian school of thought. However, there is also a school of thought that marriage is mainly for companionship. This idea is older than some might think. It came in in the late Middle Ages. Christine de Pizan, Europe's first professional woman writer, who lived in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, subscribed to this view. She was unfortunate enough to lose her husband, whom she loved dearly, after only ten years of marriage. Keep in mind that in those days marriage was often used for political and economic reasons. Now, these early "marriage as companionship" advocates were not flaming radicals. Christine was a devout Catholic who has been criticized by some modern feminists as too conservative. They would have been startled to see their idea taken later to make the idea of divorce more socially acceptable. Gay marriage? They never thought of such a thing. That idea *is* fairly modern. But it's based on the "companionship" notion. There is a difference between believing that marriage is for procreation and hating gays. There are some people who don't understand this. They generalize too much and make the situation too stark.

 

[pax]

You can feel free to start that thread, and you're free to feel that way. But I'll be completely open about the fact that such a thread would be closely moderated, and if it starts going away from a theological/moral discussion and towards unkind/hateful remarks about gays, it will be closed. Period.

Like I said, there was a double standard allowed to exist in FYM about gays. We wouldn't allow postings say that all Jews are going to hell, that black people can't be trusted around children, whatever. We're not going to allow it about gay people. There are gay members of this forum and members who have gay friends and family members.

That is all.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm afraid that I'll get banned as a homophobe though, because I don't believe it is a lifestyle that should be celebrated. And apparently anyone that has this belief in FYM is considered a homophobe (not sure why).

Mark

In my opinion, it doesn't make you a homophobe just because you disagree with the lifestyle. That alone seems like a good topic to debate.

 

[verte76]

I understand, pax. Folks, we need to keep this discussion philosophical. The split second it gets personal in any way it's fd. So, to the people who disapprove of the gay lifestyle, what is it in particular that makes you think it's wrong? It's OK if you think that marriage is mainly for procreation. This doesn't mean you hate gays. It just means you have certain moral values about the concept of marriage.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Gay marriage by the state is not a theological issue, if gays wanted to get marriage in your church and your particular church was opposed to gay marriage then it becomes a theological issue.

 

[namkcuR]

We are one of the most conservative developed nations on Earth. Even when there are liberals in the White House and in Congress, the left in America is to the right of the left in Europe and Asia, etc etc.

I hate how 'right' this country is. I disagree with banning gay marriage, I think it's another example of how, specifically the conservatives in power right now, are trying to strip people of their rights. They want to ban civil unions too. I could give a laundy list of others, but I'd be getting off-topic.

The way I see it, the thing that separates this administration from previous conservative administrations, that makes us as a country look so DISGUSTINGLY conservative in the context of the international community, is that Bush and his administration are very, very closed-minded. When the most powerful man in the world is so repulsively narrow-minded, and throws out asinine statements like 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists', or when he shows his blatent disinterest in anything having to do with diplomacy, or when he blatently tries to impose his own religious beliefs on the law, that's what turns the international community off.

Verte mentioned being an artist and how that would effect him(her?). I'm not an artist per se, but I'm a very artistic person and I can totally see where Verte is coming from. Censorship is rearing its ugly head now more than ever and I have the sick feeling that Bush, while perhaps he's not exactly behind it per se, he's probably supporting it 100%. Censorship is wrong, period. When an artist makes a piece of art, whether it be a painting or a poem/story or a piece of music or sculpture or anything else, what they are trying to do is take whatever they're feeling while they're making that art, and make something that, when seen/heard/read/felt by other people, will re-create in them that same feeling/emotion. If any piece of art is censored, then you really need to scratch out the artist's name on it and sign it 'FCC' or 'so-and-so school district' or whatever. Because the censored piece of art was made by them, not the artist, and the censored piece of art is no longer conveying the feeling/emotion that the artist had intended it to.

Does that sound right to you? It doesn't to me. This country is too 'right' for me, and as it appears, for most of the world. I would very much like to travel to European cities like Paris, Berlin, London, Dublin, and see what the political climates there are like.

 

[A_Wanderer]

See again people see the rest of the world as simply Europe. Now America may be a conservative country among these liberal democracies but it has absolutely nothing compared to the religious "conservatism" (read despotism) of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Nigeria. That is the face of the world, a harsh place where people die for petty reasons and an unjust power system really does rely on dissedents dissapearing in the middle of the night.

 

[anitram]

Gay marriage by the state is not a theological issue, if gays wanted to get marriage in your church and your particular church was opposed to gay marriage then it becomes a theological issue.

I agree with this.

A theological debate to me is interesting, because I find religion and theology and dogma to be interesting things.

But I absolutely place no worth on theology as a determinant of legal issues in this country. People are free to have faith, but their faith is irrelevant to me when it comes to the law and constitution. It's just that simple - I believe in the absolute separation of church and state and do not believe that anyone's faith, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc has any legal value in a secular state. Now if you were living in a theocratic state, then yes, your discussion of theology would be much more encompassing.

 

[anitram]

Now America may be a conservative country among these liberal democracies but it has absolutely nothing compared to the religious "conservatism" (read despotism) of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Nigeria.

Those places are despotic states, as you say. But God forbid the day should come when we are actually patting ourselves on the back for being better than them, because that's not exactly saying much.

I think what is really interesting is that Canada, which is the closest nation to the USA in terms of location, language and the shared border, is such a starkly different place when it comes to religion and generally, conservative views.

For example, people argue that "values" won George Bush the election. In Canada, you bring up those same sort of values in a federal election and you are guaranteed toast. It's a death knell and the Conservatives here know it.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

My point was that for some reason, terrorists find the USA to be a godless society, and unfortunately, all they see in this country is how we demoralize our women with hip hop culture, flaunt the worst of us on reality TV, and elsewhere. We should make an effort to prevent them from being so angry at us, and I've always found that our culture strikes a chord with them.

So you support appeasing terrorists by trying to prevent them feeling anger towards America due to the 'godless' nature of American society? Does this extend to foreign policy? Perhaps if America were to reconsider some aspects of her foreign policy terrorists would feel less anger towards America too.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am not trying to make the US look good by comparison, maybe a line.

The Line of Conservatism

European Countries -- New Zealand -- Australia --- United States ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SA, Iran, Nigeria etc.

So when people feel the need to say that the USA is a theocracy it is such a stretch, practically the same thing as saying that every one of those other countries are theocracies because when you weigh up the fundamentals they are all pretty damn close.

 

[A_Wanderer]

My point was that for some reason, terrorists find the USA to be a godless society, and unfortunately, all they see in this country is how we demoralize our women with hip hop culture, flaunt the worst of us on reality TV, and elsewhere. We should make an effort to prevent them from being so angry at us, and I've always found that our culture strikes a chord with them.

Total foolishness, the United States should stand for individual liberty and freedom; freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression. Firstly using terrorism as an excuse to pursue a social agenda is dodgy, secondly appeasement will not work with these groups, they will see weakness in your actions and if you want to show the world how weak and cowardly America is then there is nothing better than bending over, abandoning your principles and asking the agressor to be gentle.