I've often wondered if the american hatred of what we europeans love is born out of a real lived experience of vastly more gov. oppression than we have.
We have no HSAs, no three or four layer tax systems, no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues, no paranoid militarised police, no busy-body suburban sprawl of interfering no-bodies.
Here, the prices in our stores are what we pay; our taxex are handled for us; the "invasion" of the government, eg., in healthcare, is to unburden us from concern.
it seems "society and government" in the US is preoccupied with burdening people, and "micro-oppressions" of bureaucracy and interference
American issues are deeply rooted in christianity. Separation of church and state is unfortunately not really a thing here, despite it being inshrined in our constitution.
that's the point of sep' of church and state. it's to protect the church and keep it religious.
We have no sep' in the UK and our most sophisticated atheists are the appointed bishops of the church of Englandm (selected by, iirc, our prime minister)
Though I don't think this entirely explains the difference. The same could be said for some EU countries:
- "Irish issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
- "Italian issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
- "Polish issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
- "Hungarian issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
It simply doesn't explain why the USA is so different from Ireland in terms of public policy.
-----------------------------------------------
I think a bigger issue is which countries people (even europeans!) mean to include when they say "Europe". Usually they mean either "Northern Europe" and/or "Western Europe", or sometimes even a small subset of those (just the richest ones -- even Spain/Italy/Portugal are preferentially excluded sometimes depending on the topic). Some people probably started to get uncomfortable seeing "Poland" and "Hungary" up above, and have already steeled themselves for any further analysis involving "those" European countries. Many certainly wouldn't generally want to have to include Moldova, North Macedonia, Albania, and Belarus in their most casual definitions of "Europe", at least when comparing how good they have things things compared to the USA.
Breaking down "We have no HSAs, no three or four layer tax systems, no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues, no paranoid militarised police, no busy-body suburban sprawl of interfering no-bodies.", I could look at two of these:
- no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues
And counter with Poland and Hungary having some serious recent issues with abortion legislation/enforcement and LGBT freedoms. These are both "EU" nations, so it's hard to claim "Oh they're not part of Europe" but what is often implied is "Oh I wasn't talking about that Europe". But that's not a fair comparison because when we say "USA" we don't just mean California.
- no paranoid militarised police
I get what the commenter is saying. Yes, the overzealous policing situation is generally worse across the USA than the EU. But we can find regular abuse by police officers against Roma communities across Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania, and Slovakia (once again, people will often say "Oh when I say Europe I'm not talking about Bulgaria or Romania or Slovakia", as if the USA could ever just exclude the ten worst states when talking about "USA" things as well).
We also see increased militarization of police in Germany with the BFE+ anti-terror police units. And many protestors of the Gilets Jaune in France certainly saw the results of clashing with increasingly militarized police as well[0][1], including armored transport vehicles. To which some people will say "oh that's not the police, that's the Gendarmerie", which is a bit of an odd argument as that's specifically a domestic police force, and one that is explicitly militarized. What they mean by this is that the "average" police officer a citizen is likely to encounter will be less militarized, and that's true. But saying "we have no militarized police" is pretty off-the-mark.
“Separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
An “establishment of religion” refers to established churches, of which there were several in existence when the first amendment was ratified: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/established-churches.... What it’s saying is that Congress cannot establish a national church, or regulate the state established churches. The Constitution clearly doesn’t prohibit even state official churches. Massachusetts—one of the most important states at the time of the founding—had an established church until the 1820s!
What isn’t in the Constitution is French-style “separation of church and state,” where religion cannot be a motivation for laws Congress is otherwise entitled to pass. Congressmen/women can vote for laws based on Christian beliefs just as they could vote for laws based on neoliberal or socialist beliefs.
My comment above is talking about the First Amendment. When Congress approved the First Amendment in 1789, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and arguably South Carolina still had established state religions. The First Amendment simply prohibited Congress from messing with established state religions, or creating its own. It didn’t create a “separation of church and state.”
And there is no other amendment that created a “separation of church and state.” You won’t find anything like that phrase in the Constitution or its amendments.
There is a jurisprudential concept called incorporation that SCOTUS largely adheres to borne from the 14th amendment, but for various reasons that’s actually a can of worms I don’t want to debate so instead I encourage you to learn more about it and make up your own mind.
> It didn’t create a “separation of church and state.”
That said, even if we were still under only the original Constitution plus the first 10 amendments, this statement would still be incorrect because State in this case refers to the Federal government which is a state in political philosophy terms which is what this phrase is using, but counterintuitively it’s not a State under US law. The Federal state is the operating one here, because the Constitution plus the first 10 amendments are laws for running the Federal government. On the subject of the States themselves, it says very very little, not nothing, just almost nothing. At least until you get to the doctrine of incorporation I mentioned above.
Most States also have their own form of separation of church and State under their own constitutions. They don’t tend to put it in terms of “separation of church and State” but that is what they do.
The issue is that the Establishment Clause doesn’t say anything about “separation of church and state.” It’s about regulating or creating established state churches—I.e., establishments of religion.
The concept of “separation of church and state” is much broader, and comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson—who admired revolutionary France and its secularism. But it has nothing to do with either the Constitution or the First Amendment. If we are picking random quotes from founding fathers, you could reach the exact opposite conclusion by quoting Adams instead: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
It so happens that, because the Establishment Clause is a specific limit on the federal government’s ability to interfere with the state established churches that it makes no sense to incorporate the establishment clause into the states via the 14th amendment. (Just as it makes no sense to incorporate the tenth amendment against the states.)
But my point remains even if you’re just talking about the federal government. The Establishment Clause is just not getting at the “separation of church and state” concept.
I think you and I can agree that the Establishment Clause is often read over-broadly, but the First Amendment is a list of prohibitions on Congress.
Quoting the relevant part here:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So reinterpreting that in modern words: Congress shall not establish a Church of the United States and Congress shall not govern religion. The phrasing comes from Jefferson, and you are right that it is ex post facto the Constitution, but the idea is very Puritan and Jefferson himself was referencing Roger Williams (who established the first Baptist Church in America over 150 years prior) and his idealistic "Wall of Separation"[1]. Even restating the establishment clause with terminology, I can't read it any other way but as a conceptual separation of Church and State. The language does not need to be literal to have this effect.
Your quote from Adams doesn't contradict this either because it reads like an assumption that the Constitution does not need to do more than this to address religion because the American people are already moral and religious, therefore to the extent that it does so, it is adequate, but it would not necessarily work well for a different people.
Originally, it was plain old-fashioned colonialism, having to pay tribute to an overseas king that wasn't doing anything for you to fund wars between France and England that didn't involve you.
But that was a long time ago. Uncharitably, US southern states got up in arms (quite literally) about the federal government forcing them to end slavery and then later forcing them to integrate schools and serve blacks and whites at the same businesses. Charitably, there is a fair amount of legitimately bad stuff the federal government has done, i.e. Ruby Ridge, Waco, assassinating Fred Hampton, the red scare, interning of the Japanese, everything that was ever done to natives, trampling all over Hawaii.
I don't think you can just say universally one way or the other works better. The US system is designed for it to be damn near impossible to ever have true tyranny, at the cost of an ineffective government. European governments tend to take the opposite approach. Right now, that is arguably working largely in Europe's favor. In the past, well, Europe had fascism and started multiple world wars and colonized over half the world. The US has certainly done some bad stuff, but not really anything quite like that, so the "avoid descent into outright autocracy" has largely worked out so far.
There is, of course, no guarantee this will continue to work out in the future, either. Up until now, the basic idea has been the only organizations out there with the power to do things like fascism and world wars are states. As multinational private corporations become increasingly large and powerful, that may not remain the case, and the US does very little to tame them compared to what it does to tame the government.
I’m not an economist but what else do you propose we do with the government that’s thoroughly corrupt, and that’s charging $1T every 100 days on our collective credit card, to immediately piss it away on the most inane BS imaginable? What makes you believe that putting it in charge of $4.7T “healthcare system” we have in this country is going to improve, rather than worsen the matters?
That is a slogan, to justify doing more bad things. The ends justify the means, and making up a reason. "Of course the government is corrupt, hence I'm justified in also being corrupt."
If there is actual corruption and proof, it should be brought forward.
Strangely enough, this is done, and Republican/Right have a much higher percentage of being the corrupt party. Even though this is their rally cry.
If you don't see it, you not going to, so I'm not going to try to change your mind. Keep going as you are then, but keep in mind that it's not the ultra rich nor the poor who will be paying down those trillions. It'll be _you_. Each man, woman and child in the US already owes $100K. Bear that in mind when contemplating whether the government is corrupt, and whether you should let it borrow even more for no apparent benefit. Because frankly, I don't see the benefit, and I ain't going to pay all that. I'm going to retire elsewhere.
I see. You are equating national debt to corruption? That is a financial discussion. Supply/Demand, markets, investment, accounting. You'd be surprised how much 'free' markets need support to function.
I thought you were talking about actual corruption, like giving your cousin the local contract to build a bridge and getting a kick back.
It is hard to discuss these things when one side is just chanting a simple slogan.
Democrats do try to invest in society more, and sometimes that takes on more debt to do that, but that isn't the definition of the word 'corruption'.
Republicans do tend to give loans to 'friends' and get kickbacks. That is real 'corruption' and is documented in criminal cases.
Where does the money go? Why are we spending trillions on countless and unnecessary wars? Why does it cost $100B to build high speed rail between SF and LA? Why does it cost $1M to outfit a simple intersection with 4 traffic lights? Why are we spending $4.5T a year on non-functional “healthcare”? Why is it that our politicians get cushy “do nothing” sinecures after they leave “public service”? Etc, etc, etc. Until you start asking these questions yourself you won’t see the world for what it really is.
Learn what “Uniparty” is, and then maybe the clouds will part and you will see that both “parties” are really just one lobbyist controlled party which is really efficient at robbing you and depriving your children and grandchildren of a decent future. You’ll continue to be very confused until you see that by and large what we have in this country is an illusion of democracy and no matter who you vote for, the wars continue. Obama was bombing something like 7 countries at the time when he received his Nobel. The only president to not start any new wars in the last several decades won his election accidentally because the Uniparty got too cocky.
Sorry. I tend to agree with this sentiment. But it is so hard to tell what people really believe these days.
Maybe you'd be surprised, maybe not, but a large number of people expressing this exact view, will also say that the only one that can save us is Trump, he is the only one that can break this cycle. Then they will still just vote for Republicans and consent to be lead along and fall in line with the same things you are pointing out. Lambs to the slaughter in their loyalty.
[e] A lot of it is deeply rooted in American culture, the founding of the country, and a culture of individual independence/reliance on the self. In regard to this pornography thing, it's really not related to any of that; it's more of an evangelicals versus... I guess everyone who's less-than-evangelical thing, which largely splits along red versus blue party lines in the south.
> the UK's official church only appoints atheist; it would be impolite to appoint someone who actually believed in god
The Anglican Church doesn't believe in God? That's quite an argument. The U.K. still has legally required prayer in schools! https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/schools-could-be-i.... Many schools follow that law, even if it's not usually enforced.
> the UK hasnt banned porn; and despite some attempts, such extreme levels of intrusion would provoke a massive political backlash
Median US household income is ~$75k. For married households with that income and a ~$30k standard deduction, they will pay an overall federal tax rate of around 7%. For single households with that income and a standard deduction of ~$15k, they'll pay federal tax of around 12%.
10-12% is a high state tax rate, so add that on. (Most high tax states graduate tax by income and wouldn't apply these top rates to $75k income households, but nevermind that.)
1% is a high city tax rate.
10% sales tax isn't unheard of, but sales tax also does not apply to all income -- only spending, and only non-exempt spending. (And usually you also don't see 10% sales tax rates in high income tax states; it's one or the other.)
The end result is south of 30% for the median household, even in high tax states. Nowhere near 50%.
The UK was in the process of requiring age verification for online pornography in 2018. One of the reasons the law fell through is because MindGeek’s age verification system (which news reports claimed to already be in use in Germany) was going to end up becoming a de facto monopoly, with all the privacy concerns that implies.
> I've often wondered if the american hatred of what we europeans love is born out of a real lived experience of vastly more gov. oppression than we have.
What is it that "Europeans" love that Americans "hate"?
Social security. Public education. Public transportation. Walkable cities. Strict gun regulation. Not spending half of our budget in the military and police. Laws that apply to rich people. Slavery (in prison) and child labor (in farms) not protected by laws and constitution. Not relying on wars to impulse the economy. Not having our city centers crawling with desperate, dispossessed people. Probably there’s more.
> Social security. Public education. Public transportation. Walkable cities. Strict gun regulation. Not spending half of our budget in the military and police. Laws that apply to rich people. Slavery (in prison) and child labor (in farms) not protected by laws and constitution. Not relying on wars to impulse the economy. Not having our city centers crawling with desperate, dispossessed people. Probably there’s more.
Well it seems, just like Americans, Europeans love age verification laws:
I think this is really my favorite takeaway from the Cato Institute's study/ranking/index. Despite being #50 in personal freedom, Texas ranked #6 for most economic freedom. But even for things like "Personal travel freedom", half the sub-ranking was based on ALPR presence and seat belt laws. Somehow Texas ranked dead last for that, even though they allow people to ride in the back of pickup trucks without any seatbelt, and that's illegal in a lot of other states.
It's nice to see these comprehensive categorizations, where I can prompt myself to ask "How much do I care about this particular freedom vs. that one?"
Cato's a pretty well-known libertarian think tank. Not saying they are right or wrong or that your choice of words was intentional, but calling them "The conservative Cato Institute" feels a little iffy.
"Libertarian think tank says Texas sucks for personal freedom" has very different vibe than "Conservative think tank says Texas sucks for personal freedom"
American libertarianism, of which Cato is perhaps the premier example, is a somewhat extreme right wing belief system. Despite not being high control authoritarian like the other strains of conservativism in America, it is still decidedly conservative. We just have an interesting taxonomy of conservative ideologies here, from the dominant strain of theocratic fascism currently in vogue with the GOP, to the anti-regulation Galts like Ron/Rand Paul.
Everyone has a conception of “freedom” that excludes conduct that’s “wrong.” Nobody thinks you should be “free” to engage in wrongdoing. You just disagree with Texans about what’s wrong or harmful.
That stat is from 2018. If you extrapolate the trend, it’s likely a different story.
A big chunk of my fellow countrymen also think trump is worth re-electing so I really don’t value their opinions at all. Huge swath of this nation is insane.
