United States of America Still a Nation of Conservatives

First, Republicans swept a series of elections last night . . .

As I am ignorant to the specific players and circumstances of these races, I won't say too much about them, aside from saying that this is a bad sign for President Obama. They are being interpreted--by those eager to do so--as a referendum against the president. Whether or not these races are indicative of a larger trend remains to be seen, but it cannot be promising that the democrats lost the governorship of solidly blue New Jersey.

What I'm more concerned about is this:

Maine Overturns Same-Sex Marriage

For me, the most disturbing fact from that article is that out of 31 states that have had a popular vote on the issue, not ONE has voted in favor of gay marriage.*

I've long held that gay marriage is a rather trivial issue in itself, but strongly reflective of a deeper cultural divide.

From my standpoint, the perspective of hate, ignorance, and superstition is clearly winning the "culture wars" in America. At the center of this--let's be clear--is religion. That's why I am hostile towards religion, even "moderate" religion. Rationalists cannot remain idle and indifferent if they hope to preserve a secular society. Christians will never stop their "missions", which means rationalists cannot either. They must engage them in discussions and confront them politically. And they must do a better job of making their voice heard.
__________________________________________________ _

*I spoke with my fairly conservative grandma shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in Iowa. She was obviously disappointed and wished the state would simply give the citizens a chance to vote. That's the only "fair" thing to do, right? Sounds reasonable, until you consider the days of slavery and legalized segregation. How barbaric would it be to have a popular vote on these matters? It is not much less so with same-sex marriage. As they did with slavery, the federal government needs to realize that the doctrine "majority rules" is sometimes broken. There needs to be federal protection of same sex marriage

Ho boy, the second I read the thread title, I thought "Here comes the ****storm..."

As it happens though, I too am incredibly concerned about the resistance against same-sex marriage. This is 2009...this sort of backwards behaviour should not still be happening. The fact is, there are NO good reasons whatsoever for banning gay marriage. Homosexuality is hardly even mentioned in the Bible...and where it is mentioned, it's mostly in the Old Testament - right alongside other laws banning shaving and eating shellfish.

It deeply disturbs me that the people who vote against gay marriage are essentially voting to strip the rights away from a group of people over something that doesn't even affect the bigots' lives or freedom in any way at all.

Recently, I read a rather humorous take on the reasons people often come up with to justify such bigotry, particularly in the United States...this seems an ideal time to share it:

10 Best Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong...

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I'm sorry; you were surprised? XD

I haven't actually been following this as well as I should've, so I'm not going to comment more than I should beyond the obvious fact that the United States has been extremely conservative since...well, since forever (which, honestly, given the nation's two hundred and thirty-three years of history, isn't really much). Look not only how many perceive homosexuals, but atheists, Mexicans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Muslims...and just about everyone who's different from them and not a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). Yes, it is better in some places (West Coast is much more tolerant than East Coast, which is more tolerant than rest of the country), but it still doesn't change the fact that the majority of the "land of the free" still haven't gotten over some of the age-old prejudices since decades - maybe even centuries - ago.

But, then again, the same could be said about some other nations. When it comes to prejudices, France somehow rings a familiar bell (I'm not referring to homosexuals in particular here). So I'm not going to be too harsh on the United States per se when there's humanity in general I can be disappointed with. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

First, Republicans swept a series of elections last night . . .
From my standpoint, the perspective of hate, ignorance, and superstition is clearly winning the "culture wars" in America. At the center of this--let's be clear--is religion. That's why I am hostile towards religion, even "moderate" religion. Rationalists cannot remain idle and indifferent if they hope to preserve a secular society. Christians will never stop their "missions", which means rationalists cannot either. They must engage them in discussions and confront them politically. And they must do a better job of making their voice heard.

The problem:

The word "democracy" has been so ****ing romanticized by Machiavellian neo-conservative scum and the children of our generation so brainwashed by that very same word upon which our civilization was built that the public personas of the religious-right are now able to use the word to get millions of less-than-average spiritual people with good intentions to buy into their ideas.

When Europe finally gave up it's love affair with democracy, fascism was born.

Guess what America is today:
A corporate feudal-fascist democracy-republic.

Probably the best concoction in which stupid thrives.

Back to Democracy: as this old man who drinks coffee at the place where I work likes to put it: "freedom of speech- 1st amendment pretty much covers it."

At the religious right: your not the only ones who believe in ***, and you're most certainly not the only constitutionalists in this nation, they just both happen to be your convenient excuses for not thinking.

^It's true that America's political and moral culture is far more advanced than primitive areas like the Middle East.

But when considering the technology developed western "first" world, America seems unique in their prejudiced culture.

How can such an "advanced" society be so primitive? It's religion stupid! It's the root of the Middle Eastern backwardness and the root of American intolerance, ignorance and prejudice.

I love America and believe it has been a force for good in the world. I believe in capitalism, democracy, and rule of law. I believe our system of government is the greatest yet devised. I'm grateful to live here.

But I resent many aspects of our culture, and paramount among these is, of course, our religiosity.

Our intolerance for gay marriage is just one indicator of this religiosity. Another is denial of evolution. It's no surprise that fewer Americans accept evolution than pretty much any other developed nation.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

Our intolerance for gay marriage is just one indicator of this religiosity. Another is denial of evolution. It's no surprise that fewer Americans accept evolution than pretty much any other developed nation.

To maintain the status quo of my neutrality, I must note that evolution is effectively theory, not fact; granted, evolution is widely recognized and taught in the majority of American public schools, but that does not make it fact, and may eventually be discredited with some more plausible theory that some brilliant mind may one day think up, ousting Darwin. The simple fact is that unless we somehow have a time machine (please PM me if you do; I'd really like a ride~), there is absolutely no real scientific way we can prove that evolution is what brought humanity here. We're merely working off an assumption based on all the discovered evidence we have so far.

...Oh, by the way, I personally believe in the theory of evolution. XD

I don't care what people believe in.

What I care about is when people pollute good concepts with their own conflicting ideas and/or agendas and use that power to justify their own actions.

It's not religions' fault: it's people caring more about their shattered self-identity than other peoples freedoms and throwing the resulting cognitive dissonance onto minority classes.

*edit*

and collective cognitive dissonance in the case of the middle east translates to broken nationalism.

collective cognitive dissonance in the case of the polarized political atmosphere in the US translates to a nation that is hopefully casting nationalism aside for a bit since the neo-conservative twats stripped me of any reason to want to be proud to be an american for a brief period of time.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

But, then again, the same could be said about some other nations. When it comes to prejudices, France somehow rings a familiar bell (I'm not referring to homosexuals in particular here). So I'm not going to be too harsh on the United States per se when there's humanity in general I can be disappointed with. ^_^;

I assume you're alluding to the Paris riots and whatnot, yes?

I honestly do not think that it is the same kind of "prejudice" that the U.S. is experiencing as France is. While France admittedly sports a boated government full of many conservative officials, my experience has been that there is much more cultural and racial blending in France than the U.S.
I find mixed-race couples more common (I myself am a product of this), and social relationships between different races much more effortless, despite the banlieues where you have many troubled youth (largely of Maghreb and West African descent) who have nowhere to go and nothing to do. The problem is much deeper, but I won't get in to that right now.

In the U.S., however, I find a kind of hypocrasy. I've heard, for example, many Americans refer to their country as a "melting pot", but I would sooner argue a "salad bowl". You have a great variety, but they all "stick to their own kind".

This is just my interpretation, I am not trying to be biased to one country or the other. :/

Originally Posted by Calypso

I assume you're alluding to the Paris riots and whatnot, yes?

I'm also alluding to the often retold joke: "An EU poll has shown that a large number of Europeans do not have a high opinion of the French. This may have something to do with the fact that the French do not have high opinions of everyone else." Of course, this is just a joke, but I think you understand in which direction I'm headed. ^_^;

And, yes, while France is multi-cultural - I'm ready to admit that - I also feel that France is not particularly friendly towards people of other nations and cultures, especially if one's an immigrant. You've alluded towards it yourself. But I suppose that mentality is prevalent in the vast majority of all the world's countries. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Calypso

In the U.S., however, I find a kind of hypocrasy. I've heard, for example, many Americans refer to their country as a "melting pot", but I would sooner argue a "salad bowl". You have a great variety, but they all "stick to their own kind".

Not at all untrue~ While the U.S. had it better than certain places - such as South Africa - remember that they once supported segregation too; I think the current "salad bowl" mentality is a hangover from this concept. I hope this will be washed out by the time the next generation takes over, but I may be too optimistic here. ^_^;

Idly, Calypso, you have an awesome Raiden avatar/signature. Dengeki Raiden Action go~ X3

I'd just like to point out that if many of today's American conservatives had lived in the time of the Revolutionary War, they would have been royalists. Maintaining the status quo and all that.

that's a good point, Mr. Zero.

Conservative vs Liberal are infact misleading terms.

What was once economically liberal is now the new economic conservative

Same for social views.

The invisible hand theory was a very liberal approach to economics, free-market capitalism, etc......

invisible hand of course just being a clever metaphor for greed, lust, tyranny, evil, imperialism, conquest, Satan, and other fun things--says me.

also: invisible hand.

Har har.

But in all seriousness, the political verbiage of the US is mildly retarded and most people are either too lazy or unable to think themselves outside of the damning diction.

Wow, what a thread.

The first error the thread maker makes, is by calling the entire nation conservative pricks, which is wholly inaccurate.

The second error, is that he fails to specify in the thread title, the very reasoning which led him to his conclusion: religion.

The third error, is assuming all conservatives are religious, hateful, superstitious, and whatever else he called them.

How about instead of arbitrarily branding all people of a nation with blatant slurs and generalizations you actually bother to respect the people that DON'T think actually the way you claim they do. /gasp.

If anything, this thread should be changed to something similar to, "I think America is annoyingly religiously conservative".

/sigh.

Sorry. I should have called the thread "America Still a Nation of Socially Conservative Pricks".

Actually, I have nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism. It's just that in the current political climate, it is hard to find a fiscal conservative that isn't a social conservative, so I used the more general term.

As for my first "error," the definition of prick is debatable. In my view, it is an appropriate term to describe, at least, the aspect of one's character that is anti-gay rights. As to the nation's politics being to the right of most if not all of the western developed world, that's not inaccurate at all.

Secondly, what you deem an inadequate title isn't really an error. The title was supposed to illustrate we are still a politically and culturally conservative nation, despite what I and other naive progressives thought may have been a watershed election.

Third, I concede that my title was intentionally inflammatory (an attention-grabber), but my actual post was much less so. My response to the elections was purely analytical. In fact, this was the only controversial sentence in my entire post:

From my standpoint, the perspective of hate, ignorance, and superstition is clearly winning the "culture wars" in America.

Incidentally, I explicitly denoted it was from my standpoint.

To me, it looks like you read my title, formed a knee-jerk reaction, glossed over my post, and concocted a hasty response. If I would have simply left out the word pricks--assuming you still responded, which you may not have--your reply likely would have been much different.

If anything, this thread should be changed to something similar to, "I think America is annoyingly religiously conservative".

Doesn't have the same zing if you ask me.

Not all republicans are Christian and not all republicans hate gays, stop your generalizing.

Originally Posted by kreebby

Not all republicans are Christian and not all republicans hate gays, stop your generalizing.

Where did I say that? Stop your straw-man.

The strange thing is that you initially seized upon the Republicans winning some seats. How dare they! Only Democrats should EVER be allowed in office - everybody else is stupid and are only allowed to vote as a token gesture; they're not supposed to WIN.

Seriously though, you talk as if there's NEVER been a Republican candidate who was simply better suited to office than his/her Democrat rival. From what I hear, many moderates vote Republican when the Democrat alternative is just not a good one. That's what happens in many other countries, anyway: it's a by-product of having a two-party system.

Your other points are sound, though; the U.S. certainly is a highly conservative nation. My guess is that half the problem is how LARGE it is; no matter how large an initiative you launch to spread awareness and promote open-mindedness, there will always be backwaters that escape your attention.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

Sorry. I should have called the thread "America Still a Nation of Socially Conservative Pricks".

Call the thread what you want, but it doesn't speak well for you.

As for my first "error," the definition of prick is debatable. In my view, it is an appropriate term to describe, at least, the aspect one of one's character that is anti-gay rights. As to the nation's politics being to the right of most if not all of the western developed world, that's not inaccurate at all.

You used prick to connotate it's negative meaning, it's quite obvious. Of what relevance is this nations general political outlook?

Secondly, what you deem an inadequate title isn't really an error. The title was supposed to illustrate we are still a politically and culturally conservative nation, despite what I and other naive progressives thought may have been a watershed election.

Yes, but your title fails to emphasize your very opinion on the matter, which you stated yourself, "At the center of this--let's be clear--is religion."

You simply allowed your thread title to become an inaccurate, generalizing, provocative and indeed an insulting one. Contradicting your claims to it's purpose, is your third response, it didn't illustrate what you claimed in your second response, it illustrates what you admitted in your third.

Third, I concede that my title was intentionally inflammatory (an attention-grabber), but my actual post was much less so. My response to the elections was purely analytical. In fact, this was the only controversial sentence in my entire post:

I think it rather contradicted your title.

[QUOET]From my standpoint, the perspective of hate, ignorance, and superstition is clearly winning the "culture wars" in America.[/QUOTE]

Incidentally, I explicitly denoted it was from my standpoint.

To me, it looks like you read my title, formed a knee-jerk reaction, glossed over my post, and concocted a hasty response. If I would have simply left out the word pricks--assuming you still responded, which you may not have--your reply likely would have been much different.

I wouldn't say hasty, however such a title did elicit a knee jerk reaction from me, guilty as charged .

If you had left out the word pricks, it would simply have been a relatively generalized title, rather than a blatant smear, which was my problem.

Doesn't have the same zing if you ask me.

I agree, but it also doesn't put you in a good light either.

Originally Posted by Bravo

The strange thing is that you initially seized upon the Republicans winning some seats. How dare they! Only Democrats should EVER be allowed in office - everybody else is stupid and are only allowed to vote as a token gesture; they're not supposed to WIN.

Seriously though, you talk as if there's NEVER been a Republican candidate who was simply better suited to office than his/her Democrat rival. From what I hear, many moderates vote Republican when the Democrat alternative is just not a good one. That's what happens in many other countries, anyway: it's a by-product of having a two-party system.

That's not true. I did consider the possibility that, in these particular races, the Republican was simply a better candidate, which is exactly why I said:

As I am ignorant to the specific players and circumstances of these races, I won't say too much about them, aside from saying that this is a bad sign for President Obama.

By the way, perhaps in reality I am, but I don't see myself as a partisan. I think most of the democrats are too socially conservative too. I just see them as a lesser evil in that department. After all, most of them, including President Obama, do not support same-sex marriage either. But at least their opposition is not as virulent. Or perhaps it is merely for political reasons; they understand the political culture--they understand that certain beliefs disqualify you from winning in this country.

The reality is that you cannot untangle religion from politics.

The problem doesn't lie in religion; it lies in human nature itself. People, at first, naturally feel discomfort when they encounter things that are extremely different or contradict the way they normally percieve things; everyone can agree on this. Some people are able to get past this discomfort, accept that people who are different to them exist, and get along with those people; these are socially progressive individuals. Plenty of people, unfortunately, are not able to overcome this discomfort, and their discomfort eventually grows in to hate.

Let's be fair about this; even if you get rid of religion, people are still going to hate eachother for stupid reasons. I've encountered many atheist or agnostic homophobes, so religion isn't the root of the problem (Religion may, however, be "sustaining" the root of the problem for religious people, as people who hate homosexuals will most likely look to religion to somehow justify their views).

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

Actually, I have nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism. It's just that in the current political climate, it is hard to find a fiscal conservative that isn't a social conservative, so I used the more general term.

Libertarians are on the rise.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

You used prick to connotate it's negative meaning, it's quite obvious.

Yeah, it is. What does that have to do with what you said before?

You claimed that it was "inaccurate," which didn't make much sense given that we're dealing with a subjective matter. To me, opposing same-sex marriage is characteristic of a prick. You may disagree with that assessment. Whether or not America is a conservative nation is a matter of fact, and my contention that it is demonstrably accurate.

Of what relevance is this nations general political outlook?

It's the entire point of the thread, isn't it?

After the thumping the Republicans were dealt in the 2006 and 2008 elections, it seemed possible that the nation's politics and culture had shifted to the left. What I'm arguing here, which should be clear from the title, is that this is not the case. My main explanation for why America remains a conservative nation is religion.

If you had left out the word pricks, it would simply have been a relatively generalized title, rather than a blatant smear, which was my problem.

Here's the thing. It is an intolerant title. But ask yourself, what is the original source of the intolerance. I don't believe the act of tolerance should be extended to those who themselves are intolerant. No matter how you dress it up, the opposition of same-sex marriage is intolerant. It is rooted in hate and fear.

So, to put it bluntly, I don't feel like we should have to tolerate intolerance.