Thanks, you’re absolutely welcome.

I’m actually somewhat optimistic (unlike some here on this blog) about the future of American politics. The neocon influence on the Republican party seems to be self-destructing.

I think you’re right about that. The Netherlands used to be under the absolute control of the Calvinist branch of protestantism, and things were going quite like now in the United States. You had the Calvinists and Lutheran protestants, and the Catholics, who fiercely hated each other, and tended to form communities of their own, which were called “zuilen” (Pillars). Each of these pillars belonged to a different group of peoples, who only befriended people from the same pillar, while all others were excluded.

After a while however, people began to tire of this, and started doing things their own way. This led to a process called “ontzuiling” or depillarisation, which effectively brought the stranglehold of religion over the government to an end, and under several progressive politicians, the Netherlands was transformed to a secular and very liberal state, in which drugs was partially legalised, as well as same sex marriages and abortion.

In regards to what you have said, this may very well become a reality for you as well, as there is already much more debate between atheists and theists, which was probably unthinkable 20 years ago, especially because every atheist back then was immediately suspected of being a “pinko”, and a degenerate. I can only hope that this will one day happen to the US as well, because your country is still the most powerful in the world, and whatever happens there, also has its consequences here, and indeed, much of the world. Until that time you will have to keep your chins up, but as long as blogs like these are still not outlawed, you should be fine

It’s damn sad.

I’m actually somewhat optimistic (unlike some here on this blog) about the future of American politics. The neocon influence on the Republican party seems to be self-destructing. You wouldn’t know it on the surface yet necessarily, but NONE of the neocons like John McCain. Even if he wins (which would still be terrible for the country and the world), it will be VERY different from a Bush-style presidency. If he loses, the Republican party will be in serious trouble of becoming irrelevant for a while. After which, a take-over from a “new republican” movement (probably libertarian under the branding of being a ‘return to Reagan’ whether or not it is) or maybe we’ll see a new party emerge (not likely). My prediction… But you never know. The fundies always seem to find a way. Maybe they’ll inflitrate the Democratic party *shiver*.

Well, I certainly hope the European countries facing fundamentalism gets it under control BEFORE getting their own George W. Bush and their own version of the AWFUL SCOTUS justices we got during the Bush regime. Us liberals in the USA tend to always fantasize about the USA progressing to Eureopean liberalism and secularism. I don’t want you guys to lose what you have and start wishing you had it like us!

What you are saying is absolutely true. Of course not all immigrants are bad, but it’s always the rotten apples that make up most of the troubles we’re facing. It is this kind of people who are giving Muslims all over the world a bad name, and only because they so vehemently believe in what they preach, that they are willing to use violence or aggressive tactics, to accomplish their goals.

I am aware of the Muslim problem facing Europe. You guys need to figure out what to do about that. It shows the dangers of unbridled faux-liberalism. These are the “politically correct” types who won’t allow anything that they decide is offensive to be said or done.

You’re right about the politically correct types. Perhaps you are also aware of a certain Geert Wilders. Though he is not at all very representative for the dutch people in general (He hates the quran, and his leadership methods are dubious at best), he is by far one of the few in the cabinet who isn’t politically correct. The politically correct types have dominated the Dutch government for a long time, perhaps as far back as the post-Hitler years. It is very hard for a right wing party, or a left wing party for that matter, to talk about Muslims or immigration without being viewed as a populist, or a fascist party, so we will have to change people’s mindsets about that first. Of course, this will probably become a slow and tedious process, because the people are just as divided, or perhaps even more so, than the government itself.

Maybe your Christian fundamentalist problem is a reaction to that.

You know, I never looked at it that way, though they are also always talking about bringing back “morality and modesty” in the Netherlands, which is something you will probably be very familiar with in the US. In the eyes of these christians, the Dutch community is a godless and immoral society, which should be brought back to the Christian values of old, so I think it’s a bit of both. However, it still is a very unpleasant development, as more than half of the country is either atheist, or agnostic. (quite a difference in comparison to the US, eh?)

However, Christian fundamentalism is also a very large problem in your country, while the Muslim community there is very small, so the reasons for Christian fundamentalism in your country must be very different. Of course, there is a far larger Christian community in the US, but besides that, is there another reason for this?

BTW, I have been reading a bit on your website, especially about that insanely large family, the Dugalls or something like that, which was good for a laugh or two. It’s all very interesting, so I’ll go back to reading now, and maybe I’ll find some answers for myself.

I am aware of the Muslim problem facing Europe. You guys need to figure out what to do about that. It shows the dangers of unbridled faux-liberalism. These are the “politically correct” types who won’t allow anything that they decide is offensive to be said or done.

There’s nothing wrong with immigrants (as long as you have room for them), but they have to integrate into your society. You can’t allow them to come in and change your values. That’s what’s happening with the Muslims in Europe. Maybe your Christian fundamentalist problem is a reaction to that.

That is true, but I wish we were a more advanced civilization (like Europe), where the constant need to inject God into politics is considered unseemly.

Wow, you give some of us Europeans way too much credit, though thanks for the compliment! I come from the Netherlands, which has been one of the more liberal and secular countries in Europe, until now that is…

You see, the Netherlands has always been extremely tolerant of everything, and as a result, we are now suffering of the consequences. The muslims who have settled here over the last thirty years, are now demanding that we build more mosques for them, as well as more muslim schools, which are both usually funded by Saudi-Arabia, and thus quite fundamentalist in nature. Our government has not stood up to this, and instead made even more concessions to the muslims, which makes one wonder who’s ruling who.

Also, our government pretends to be secular, but since Balkenende IV, a coalition of CDA (Christian democratic appeal), CU (Christian Union) and PVDA (Labour party) is installed as our cabinet, we have seen the rise of Christian fundamentalism, something which has not happened since the 50’s, almost 60 years ago. Especially the CU is constantly trying to forbid things like violent games, drugs, prostitution, or everything else that is not compatible with the bible.

The things that are happening here, are also happening (or already have happened) under your government, so basically we’re both in the same boat here. However, it’s also happening in the rest of Europe. In England, the situation is even worse. France, the most secular country in all of Europe, is suffering under the demands of her minorities, while the secular republic of Turkey recently lifted the ban on the headscarf, under a conservative Islamic party. Germany too, suffers from the demands of both extremist muslims, and fundamentalist christians.

If your president opens his mouth, even if it’s just because he has to yawn, it’s immediately published in every major newspaper in Europe, but the situations that I described above, usually aren’t mentioned in your newspapers. However, we too are facing the same troubles you are facing, unfortunately.

I have read the rest of your entry as well of course, which was very interesting as well, though a lot of things you describe in your entry all sound very foreign to me. Luckily for us we don’t have to deal with mormons, as 600.000 fundamentalist christians are already causing enough trouble as it is for us. It would sure be nice for all of us if all those christians were as moderate as J. Brent Walker, but once they are in power, they usually change for the worst, which is exactly what happened to us, and what probably will happen to you (again), if another republican becomes president…

Anyway, sorry for the long comment, and sorry if I made any grammar mistakes, English isn’t my mother tongue after all!

Beefcake.NL

Yes I am.

That seems extreme.

Yes it probably is, but I really don’t want to go too far into this because it means debating someone else’s religion. But in short I don’t like the way Mormons in general treat women, minorities and children. I can’t accept anyone who is willing to turn a blind eye toward the way their faith has traditionally mistreated and encouraged the mistreatment of people.

Yes, the Mormons believe some crazy stuff, but it actually isn’t half as crazy as what the young-Earth creationists believe (Adam & Eve riding on dinosaurs, etc.).

No argument here. Young earthers may not be the most misguided people on earth but they are probably in the top three. Right after suicide bombers and and Mormons who still practice polygamy. But only barely so because the Heaven’s Gate cult committed suicide back in ‘97.

Look I already admitted I was biased. My issue with Mormons is my own. I’ve seen how they work, how they infiltrate a community and how they work together to exclude the rest of us. What makes you think Romney would be any different from the rest? If he was ever elected how many cabinet positions would go to fellow Mormons?

Are you saying that a candidate’s Mormonism is sufficient to deny him your vote? That seems extreme. Yes, the Mormons believe some crazy stuff, but it actually isn’t half as crazy as what the young-Earth creationists believe (Adam & Eve riding on dinosaurs, etc.). I also don’t see how those beliefs in and of themselves disqualify a candidate. It does raise some serious questions. A candidate who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old is probably not going to approach scientific matters properly. Considering how important issues such as education and global warming are, I would want to know that candidates positions there. That’s the key.

Remember that Jimmy Carter was a crazy Baptist, but he never let that intrude on important policies (that’s why the fundies turned on him). The fact that he wasn’t a very good president was caused by other issues, not his religion.

You’ve given us a lot to chew on. I think you have accurately characterized Mitt Romney.

One thing you wrote confuses me. I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying and how it relates to this discussion:

The view of some is that religion can have a token presence in the public square so long as it is marginalized to the background. While slightly better than the politically-correct “fascism” of those who demand total privatization of religious expression and strict separation under some squishy, intellectually lazy concept of “tolerance,” it forces persons of genuine, sincerely-held faith to enter the public discourse as second-class citizens–disarmed of much that they hold materially critical in life.

I’m also unclear on this paragraph:

Thus, it is a manifest disservice to our civil discourse and our individual liberty to suggest that all legitimate, factual discussions of theology, even in the context of a political campaign, are “bigotry.”

I don’t really want to respond until I understand what you really meant by these. To clarify the bigotry statement I made in my article, I am saying that if the sole criterion somebody uses to exclude a candidate is his religion, then that is bigotry.

Come to Canada, folks. The land where the words “liberal” and “intellectual” and “progressive” are not used as putdowns. Plus the beer is GREAT!

Ruprect

And bravo, speedzzter! That was well-said.