Religion and Politics (no spam)

[C Elegans]

I totally agree with you @Luis that religion and politics should not be mixed. Politics should not be mixed with anything outside human soceity.

[quote="Tamerlane]The so-called 'Religious-Right' have finally reared their ugly head in Australia. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Chanak]I'm not that surprised to hear about this development. A number of connections between like-minded Christian fundamentalists on both continents have existed for some time - in particular"]

I have long noticed a parallell development in the US and Oz regarding christian fundamentalism. This has puzzled me - does anyone know the reason?

There are many cultural similarities between the two countries, but not enought to explain why for instance young earth creationism has become relatively widespread while it is virtually unknown in Europe.

[fable]

There are many cultural similarities between the two countries, but not enought to explain why for instance young earth creationism has become relatively widespread while it is virtually unknown in Europe.

I don't believe creationism is popular in the US--but its proponents, and the far right religionists in general, are very loud. They know how to get the attention of the media, and they've managed to get the ear of one of the two political parties. They also possess excellent organizational skills, plenty of money, and the ability to lie like dogs because they view their opponents as eternally lost. The ends, in their opinions, justify whatever means can be brought to bear.

But if you look at simple numbers, they are not a large group.

[Tamerlane]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I have long noticed a parallell development in the US and Oz regarding christian fundamentalism. This has puzzled me - does anyone know the reason?

There are many cultural similarities between the two countries, but not enought to explain why for instance young earth creationism has become relatively widespread while it is virtually unknown in Europe.[/QUOTE]

Australia is still a predominantly Christian country however most people appear to be of the non-practicising type. Basically you have a lot people willing to refer to themselves as Christians but being disillusioned by the Anglican and Catholic systems. This more or less sets up a wonderful hunting ground for the evangelical churches and I know for a fact that there are two Mormon 'missionaries' from America patrolling our local neighbourhoods trying to convert disgruntled Christians.

I've met them and once even asked why aren't they helping out in much poorer countries, Timor for example has a Christian majority and could use as much help as possible rebuilding after the Indonesian militia's burned everything during the months before the indenpendance vote. In my opinion they are just lazy, its one thing to go to a country which has faced immeasurable hardship and another to come down here and basically ride along the beaches and spend a few months in holiday mode.

Secondly I used to do a lot of youth work and was in an almost daily contact with people who were associated with the evangelical crowd and let me tell you that it is basically nothing but a cash cow. Teenagers are the sole targets, and I've already been to my fair share of 'Christian Rally/Concerts/Conventions', or whatever you want to call them. They do a lot of good work withing communities but at the same time they market Christian music CD's, shirts, books and a whole range of items target specifically at teenagers. These functions are also attended by speakers often flown in directly from the States, it was only a matter of time until they became a political force but the marketing campaign has been going for a while and just continues to grow in strength.

I'm a Christian but I'm a cynical one especially when I see people out to make a quick dollar on someones faith. Unfortunately some of that money is spent to promote conservative parties, how else could you explain a new and in-experienced party winning over so many voters at our federal election.

[C Elegans]

Judging from poll data, Young Earth Creationism is surprisingly popular in the US. The 1999 Gallup showed that 47% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". 40% believed in evolution with divine guidance, and only 10% believed in naturalistic evolution. (4% had no opinion).

These are shocking figures that has no parellell elsewhere in the world. And it's not a chance result - polls over the last 20-30 years consistently show between 45-65% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism, and about 60% believe that god created man within the last 10 000 years. This is a fundamental marker for the degree of christian fundamentalism is the US.

In Europe, creationism has never been a movement or never a consideration, according to a UN Poll 82% of Europeans believe in naturalistic evolution. The catholic as well as the lutheran church accepts evoution - since Darwin, there has not been a contradictory relationship between believing in a god and viewing evolutions as a means for that god to create man and other species. Maybe Europe's long history of theocracy and it's clashes with science has taught us something? One can always hope. In any case, creationism is not an issue in Europe, and while the US has groups who lobby for teaching of creationism and "intelligent design" in science classes, creationism has the same status as scientology in Europe.

The only other country on earth where creationism is - again, relatively speaking - widespread, is Australia. According to polls, there may be up to 5% of the population who believe in Young Earth creationism. However, the situation is confusing - a poll among students showed that between 10-20% agreed both with the statements of fossiles accumulated in sediment over millions of years, evolution, and that the age of the earth is less than 10 000 years.

Difficult to interpret, but there can be no other conclusion than the US population being unique in creationist beliefs, and the Ozzies outstanding in the rest of the world. The special development of christian fundamentalism in the US is perhaps easier for me to understand because I have read a lot about the phenomenon, but whether the Australian development is associated with the US religious movements and how the two came to be similar in a religious faith that goes against all the collected knowledge and evidence of this world, is beyond me.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Tamerlane] Basically you have a lot people willing to refer to themselves as Christians but being disillusioned by the Anglican and Catholic systems. This more or less sets up a wonderful hunting ground for the evangelical churches and I know for a fact that there are two Mormon 'missionaries' from America patrolling our local neighbourhoods trying to convert disgruntled Christians. [/QUOTE]

Interesting. Do you know if evangelic churches promoting creationism have also been "imported" from the US? I can see now how a vulnerability for this type of propaganda may have been present in Oz.

[Tamerlane]

Oh without a doubt, I know of church pastors being schooled in theology in the States as well as churches establishing relationships with their American counterparts. Bible colleges now exist in Australia, you have to realise that 'college' is still a predominately American word. We refer to our higher tertiary centres 'universities' so its not often you see the word college around here but nevertheless bible colleges have begun to spring up around here.

[CM]

Dun dun dun dunnnnn

Yes I am gonna play devils advocate and state that religion should be allowed in Politics. But then again I come a very uni-religious society which bases all its actions on religious doctrine. Plus i still hold if many remember that many moral codes and laws resulted from religion. Thus even if you have a secular government presently you are undoubtly basising them on some ancient religious custom or tradition.

I will attempt to use generic laws, political actions and whatever else i can think off. But just to forewarn, i wont have much time to respond on a daily basis, as you guys may have noticed i am rarely on GB as the work load is currently high so please be patient.

Now where to begin. Should Religion and Politics be seperated? Nope. Is it even seperated today? Nope. In the US the examples are obvious. Judges and other political figures are sworn in with their hand on a holy text. Their oath mentions God. Currently you have after what i think i read it was 40 years once again Church on Sunday's at the white house. Which means until the 1950s maybe the 1960s you had regular church gatherings? (what would you call them? Meetings?).

Switzerland in the very heart of europe has a very dominant calvinist and christain identity. The one reason why from what i have read in Swiss news papers (geneva is far more liberal than 90% of Switzerland) is that religion plays a very dominant role when people vote for naturalization. In Switzerland your local community votes on giving you swiss nationality. Regardless you will find alot of Philipinos who are granted and given longer changes and permission for nationality than say an Individual from Seirra Leone.

I know this very lopsided and no way coherent but i am writting this in between work and stuff. Anyway if someone wants to start on a specific angle or a country please be my guest. It would make my life much easier in providing my own point of view. Oh yeah Saudi Arabia does not constitute a religious country. It consititutes a ****ed up form of government. Heck no muslim agrees they have the right to govern.

Now back to work.

[Chanak]

I have some thoughts concerning similarities between Australian and American culture. Perhaps the most obvious has to do with being former British colonies (although portions of the US were formerly Spanish and French territories). Second, continental size and some similarities in climate/geography. Both Australia and the US shared expansive frontierland (though arguably Oz has a larger percentage or arid/rough country, very similar to the American Southwest), which translated into plenty of elbow room for settlers. North America has a native marsupial, a remnant perhaps of a time when the two continents shared a land-connection. If I'm not mistaken, North America and Australia are the only two continents where marsupials are found naturally in the wild. Both continents sport native crocodilians (the American Alligator has been making a comeback; they were quite numerous where I was living in Florida)...the list goes on. Circumstantial and cultural similarities between settlers to both continents plays a key role in the affinity the US and Australia share. Fertile ground for a Christian fundamentalist connection, I would think.

[Brynn]

What is unbelievable for me is that this tactic (ie. using religion in politics) actually works. How come that religious people don't see that this is just a tirck (if that's the case - I don't want to say that each and every party that calls itself religious is acting).

Take Brazil, for example. One party abused people's faith, as it, according to Luis, was expectable. Why did they vote for him, then?

It's the same here (not the religion, but the way of thinking). Communists rule the country for 40 damned years, brought the whole country to ruin, and who do you think lead now? Their heir party. I just don't understand how this can happen.

[Silur]

In my view, the problem is not so much that religion is moving into politics. A much more serious problem is that politics now promotes itself much in the same way religion does. In short, in politics, the age of reason is over. In most countries (please take note Fable, Im not bashing just the big one across the lake ) political campaigns play on emotions rather than appealing to meaningful political agendas. Sure, the political parties still have agendas, but they are much more vague in terms of what they actually want to accomplish. It's "We care for the environment", or "We oppose government spending", etc. Twenty years ago, these statements would (at least here) be accompanied by an action plan, detailing by what means the political party aims to accomplish their goals. Today, it's more interesting who the opposing candidate is having sex with (sorry Fable, couldnt help myself).

Since this thread has now officially been prolonged inevitably by the mention of Godwins law, let me ask a slightly related question. Doesn't it worry anyone but me that all these self-imposed vulnerabilities that political parties promote might come back to bite them when they're in ofice? To be more specific; if you swear yourself to one faith, but in real life politics find yourself stuck between that faith and sensible action, you're pretty much done for either way (...if it weren't for society's rampaging amnesia). I'd prefer having a politician that states that he gets drunk once in a while, smokes strange stuff whenever he's in Holland, that he has had one or two affairs previously but sorted it out with his wife, his current misstress is approved by both his ex and current wife, etc, etc than one that successfully manages to portray the holier-than-thou image and have an entire closet full of skeletons. And to be just a little bit paranoid - suppose that closet is only available to an evil foreign power, in a well documented, photographic sort of way? Who is in control then?

[Brynn]

Well, what you say depends heavily on the country we're talking about. Though I understand what you mean, I'm sure a person like that won't have a slight chance to be accepted, no matter how honest and straight he is...

On the other hand, people tend to believe those who lie and question those who try to be as true as they can. Personally, I don't believe in anyone anymore... That's why I don't vote.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Brynn]Well, what you say depends heavily on the country we're talking about. Though I understand what you mean, I'm sure a person like that won't have a slight chance to be accepted, no matter how honest and straight he is... [/QUOTE]

Aw chucks! There goes my political career!

Strangely, the countries with the more paranoid populace tend to hold their politicians to the most absurd standards. As a side note, here in Sweden, the party where the leader mentioned god in a speech lost whole percentages in the polls while a different party leader getting drunk as a skunk and peeing on the floor in a public building barely got a dent in their popularity figures. They had fewer to start with, though...

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=fable]
I don't believe creationism is popular in the US--but its proponents, and the far right religionists in general, are very loud. [/QUOTE]

Yes indeed. In Brazil matters are worst cause low education added with lack of future vision results in "extra faith needed". For example, there was a congress auction to legalize abort (sorry is this the word for stopping pregnancy?) when the child will be born without a brain, because of bad formation, diseases, well, natural causes anyway.
Our congress has been overflown by thousands emails, faxes, and even persons who entered and started distributing flyers with negative propaganda about it, in name of the cristian churches.
It is a pity that the project has been refused. Aint it evil to permit that a mom run the risk of having her child, knowing that the children will die? I guess the psicological factor involved should be enough to legalize abort.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
The only other country on earth where creationism is - again, relatively speaking - widespread, is Australia. According to polls, there may be up to 5% of the population who believe in Young Earth creationism. However, the situation is confusing - a poll among students showed that between 10-20% agreed both with the statements of fossiles accumulated in sediment over millions of years, evolution, and that the age of the earth is less than 10 000 years.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that is the principle of doublethinking - have you read 1984 by Orwell? You must accept the truth, you must be guided by what they want without question. I guess in Australia case, people are comfortable with religion and science and dont want to discuss it, what is not so bad.

[fable]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Judging from poll data, Young Earth Creationism is surprisingly popular in the US. The 1999 Gallup showed that 47% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". 40% believed in evolution with divine guidance, and only 10% believed in naturalistic evolution. (4% had no opinion).

These are shocking figures that has no parellell elsewhere in the world.[/quote]

Yes, they are, but if you look at the figures for adults under the age of 30, the numbers are 56% to 42% in favor of some evolutionary theory, rather than 40% to 47%. Education also figures into the mix: 58% of US college graduates look favorably on evolution.

The key I think to understanding these figures is the US agri-belt. While the US is portrayed (and likes to portray) itself as a high-tech nation, more than half the states are heavily dependent upon agriculture in the forms of farming and ranching for their main business and trade. And as you know, from Swedish rural culture, these people are extremely conservative, frequently evangelical, and strongly opposed to such ideas as evolution. If the Gallup poll you referenced was conducted exclusively in this area which stretches from the northern midwest through much of the western part of the US (save the west coast) and down through the south, the figures would almost certainly show an overwhelming support for some form of creationism. It's not the US that's the issue, IMO: if we look at history, we'll see that rural culture the world over has always maintained strong religious roots, frequently Luddite, and always extremely conservative. It's this rural culture--the same culture that has caused a groundswell of tens of millions of people in Russia for the election of the last Czar as a saint--that is responsible for creationist support.

In Europe, creationism has never been a movement or never a consideration, according to a UN Poll 82% of Europeans believe in naturalistic evolution.

Never is a very, very long word. It is not the same as "not right now," which is much shorter. In 19th century Europe, furious battles raged over the publication of Darwin and Huxley, among others. Evolution was depicted variously as the French revolution in a new form, or as a Bolshevik plot. It was condemned from religious pulpits in England and elsewhere, and the French RCC made every attempt to get the government to close secular newspapers that supported it.

Even recent European history is not exempt from creationism. Not too long ago, a group of evangelical and non-evangelical Christian parties in the Netherlands successfully got evolution removed from the final examinations of secondary schools. It took a storm of protests from the Nederlands Instituut voor Biologie and the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) to get this reversed. To this day, the Netherlands has an evangelical broadcasting corporation, the Evangelische Omroep, whose BBC nature documentary rebroadcasts are censored to remove evolutionary concepts from voiceovers.

And as recently as under two months ago, Ljiljana Colic, the Serbian Education Minister, attempted to get evolution banned from the nation's schools until creationism could be taught alongside it as equally worthy. It was only after opposition parties and scientists protested loudly and long that Prime Minister Kostunica called off the move.

So while the US results on the question of creationism are more disturbing than those of Europe, the rural context has to be considered in viewing the US numbers; while European numbers can be deceptive, as regards the zealousness of creationist advocates, and their potential power in government and culture.

[C Elegans]

Yes, they are, but if you look at the figures for adults under the age of 30, the numbers are 56% to 42% in favor of some evolutionary theory, rather than 40% to 47%. Education also figures into the mix: 58% of US college graduates look favorably on evolution.

These statics give hope for the future, but it still shows that the US eons from Europe in these issues. In Europe, there is no difference between evolutionary science and other science - it would be equivalent of saying "58% of college graduates look favourably on gravity".

It's this rural culture--the same culture that has caused a groundswell of tens of millions of people in Russia for the election of the last Czar as a saint--that is responsible for creationist support.

Sociology studies have consistently demonstrated that urban populations all over the world have more similarities to each other than to rural population even in the same culture. Studies of major cities have shown the same: not only the characteristics of the population but also other features make big cities more alike each other than rural areas. Thus, people in NYC, London, Paris, Dubai, Shanghai or S:t Petersburg are more similar to each other than to their rural living countrymen. In large, culturally diversified countries as the US, China and India, I think this is even more true than in many smaller countries with a more homogenic population.

The rural population of Europe is more religious than the city population, but the main differences are rather in other areas. In Western Europe the rural population is consistently more negative to homosexuality, immigration, EU, globalisation etc. It's very much a "proximity principle" (ie I care only about myself, people close to me and our immediate surroundings) versus a more global worldview (ie we are all citizens of the world, equal human rights, etc).

Apart from religion being a less important issue in Europe in general, I also see a difference in how much influence these conservative groups have.

When I wrote:
"In Europe, creationism has never been a movement or never a consideration, according to a UN Poll 82% of Europeans believe in naturalistic evolution. The catholic as well as the lutheran church accepts evoution - since Darwin, there has not been a contradictory relationship between believing in a god and viewing evolutions as a means for that god to create man and other species.
I meant never since Darwin. I should have denoted that more clearly. We are both familiar with the Victorian age outrage over the idea that "man arose from apes". However, although inital resistance, it took only 10 years before a majority of educated people accepted evolution.

It is important to point out some differences between the inital European resistance against evolution, and the modern Young Earth Creationism:
1. The age of the earth was not a problem in Europe - geologist had presented the implausibleness for a young earth long before Darwin appeared - it was the descendence from apes that was unthinkable for the church.
2. The early resistance from the scientific community was not against evolution, but against the Darwin's proposal that natural selection was the primary mechanism.

The religious resistance against evolution and the link between man and apes had died long ago in Europe when it was revived in the US in the 1920's. At the same time as genetics science merged with evolutionary science and confirmed the scientific validity of evolution in Europe, the fundamentalists in the US started a crusade against evolution. Thanks to people like Bryan and baptism pastor Riley, this crusade became surprisingly successful and banning of teaching evolution in schools spread during a decade or so. After that, it is my understanding that creationism decreased in popularity, and was not revived again until the 1970's. Since then, creationist's have gained in popularity in the US, and to me it is a mystery how this has been possible.

It must be noted that in no other part of the world has religion left such a bloody record and clouded knowledge for as long a time, as in Europe. The first scientifically described dinosaur fossiles were discovered as late an early 19th century. Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859. I am not trying to demonstrate that Europe has been less inclined for religious fanatism than the US historically, but I want to point out that I think Europe learned something from the Dark ages etc, and religion has lost its grip here over the last century, whereas it remains firm in the US. I think the US should look at European history as a horror example of the effects of religious fundamentalism. Among scientists of all disciplines, from biology to literature, it is acknowledged that the 19th century marked a loss of knowledge that it took almost the entire 20th century to recover from.

I am aware Colic's attempt in Serbia, but the Netherland situation was news to me. However, I am sure similar attempts from European creationists exist in many European countries, but for many reasons I view these individual spottings of the ugly head of creationism as very different from the organised, partly successful US movements.

1. Public reaction If there is no public support for suggestions coming from creationists, then politicans don't need to listen to them either. In the US, there is a strong public support for "teaching both alternatives". In Europe, it would be viewed as teaching both that the earth is flat and that the earth is round. As I stated previously, the status of creationism here is similar to that of scientology - sure there are some individuals and some groups who believe in these ideas, but their possibility of influencing people is very limited.

2.The educational system Most European countries have a strong central regulation of education. This means central regulation of curriculum. Even private schools must follow these regulations, or they will be closed. In Sweden, a small (>100 pupils) private religious school was closed last year due to teaching creationism in science class. In the US, you have an entire state, Arkansas, that refuse to conform to the 1987 US Supreme court decision that creationism is not science. There are many public schools who teach "a balanced view", ie both creationism and evolution, and the US debate is over public schools. In Europe, you will at the most find a handful of small private schools in each country who teach creationism at all.

Thus, millions of Americans grow up with the belief that creationism is some kind of alternative to evolution. Although the statistics you presented early in your post is hopeful, it's still a frightening perspective that "58% of college students look favorable upon evolution". It poses questions about the educational system as well as the information flow in general in society. Having a fundamentalism born-again president probably does not help the situation.

So, I there is a difference not only in quantity, but also quality between the influence creationims has in the US versus Europe. However - seeing that creationism has gained in the US, Australia and recently also in the UK, I am not excluding the sad possibility that it will increase in Europe as well. Europe has a lovely tendency to import the worst from the US. If that is going to be the case in the future, I hope that the popularity will be limited due to the widespread secularation (in Sweden, only 6% of the population believe in a god, which obviously decrease the probability that creationism will gain popularity here) and the centralised school system.

[fable]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Sociology studies have consistently demonstrated that urban populations all over the world have more similarities to each other than to rural population even in the same culture. Studies of major cities have shown the same: not only the characteristics of the population but also other features make big cities more alike each other than rural areas. Thus, people in NYC, London, Paris, Dubai, Shanghai or S:t Petersburg are more similar to each other than to their rural living countrymen. In large, culturally diversified countries as the US, China and India, I think this is even more true than in many smaller countries with a more homogenic population.[/quote]

And this is my point about the rural US and creationism: that its cultures are more like those of the rural Netherlands, Sweden, France, Italy, etc, than the urban US metro areas, where such views are held by a minority. (You only need to do a comparison of the figures in some US religions, such as Baptists, to see the huge rural base, and the small numbers in urban areas.) The organization that has been brought to bear, forging US ruralia into a powerful, easily controlled group by misinformation campaigns, bodes poorly for Europe, where such organization is only now being attempted.

I am aware Colic's attempt in Serbia, but the Netherland situation was news to me. However, I am sure similar attempts from European creationists exist in many European countries, but for many reasons I view these individual spottings of the ugly head of creationism as very different from the organised, partly successful US movements.

Give it time. The fact that the EO is an evangelical television network in the Netherlands is ominous, in my opinion. It shows that the evangelicals are taking their message into a medium which is extremely powerful in reaching vast numbers of people who otherwise never read a newspaper or book. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Bakkers and Oral Roberts are appalling US examples of just how strong such organizations can become, and the political power they can wield. I see this as something very much in the near future for select areas in Europe where the rural population is relatively large, and feels itself poorly represented by a predominantly secular, liberal urban society and government.

In Sweden, a small (>100 pupils) private religious school was closed last year due to teaching creationism in science class. In the US, you have an entire state, Arkansas, that refuse to conform to the 1987 US Supreme court decision that creationism is not science. There are many public schools who teach "a balanced view", ie both creationism and evolution, and the US debate is over public schools. In Europe, you will at the most find a handful of small private schools in each country who teach creationism at all.

Your statements about the US are news to me. I was under the impression that Arkansas was forced into compliance with national law by the Federal courts; and as far as I know, the very few localities and states that tried for the so-called balanced view were also forced to retract. If I'm wrong, this is extremely worrying. What's your sources for your remarks, above?

So, I there is a difference not only in quantity, but also quality between the influence creationims has in the US versus Europe. However - seeing that creationism has gained in the US, Australia and recently also in the UK, I am not excluding the sad possibility that it will increase in Europe as well. Europe has a lovely tendency to import the worst from the US.

It's only fair, because the US imported the worst from Europe. Where do you think all this hidebound bigotry over here originated? The so-called Pilgrims were puritanical Christians who wanted to enforce their own misbegotten views of human behavior and existence on everyone around them; when this was denied, they left England. Some of the most intransigent Germans arrived on these shores in the mid-19th century, and dissident extremist religious communities have played a strong part in American culture(s) over the centuries. Even the great Evangelical Revival of the 1850s was spurred by a comparable movement in England at the same time.

In any case, I suspect you will find a far more visible and vocal rural population in Europe in the near future, linking hands over a range of religious issues. Expect those numbers of creationists to rise. Sad to say, but it will save you time spent on angst, later.

[Brynn]

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio] Aint it evil to permit that a mom run the risk of having her child, knowing that the children will die? I guess the psicological factor involved should be enough to legalize abort.[/QUOTE]

Well, this is another, very serious matter. It's like saying "there is no point in living with AIDS 'cause you are sure to die anyway" - so preventing a child who has a mortal disease from being born is roughly similar to killing someone suffering from AIDS. Spare him the suffering, shall we? Just b/c he's too small to count...

On the other hand, you're right. It might make sense to end his life before being born - it's "easier" than see him suffering for month and then die in terrible pain, this will put an extremely heavy load on his parents, too, and was in vain after all. But is it man's privilege to decide between life and death?

Er.. shall we start a new thread on this?

So I just wanted to say that it's not that easy to decide if abortion should be allowed or not.

[Chanak]

To my knowledge, not a single public school system in the US is "officially" including creationism in the science curriculum. If they were, Federal funds (and more than likely, state funds since the state government and legislature would be like rats jumping off a sinking ship) would be yanked and the media would be all over it in droves. CE, you should understand that in each state, the public school system is structured differently. Often, each county in a state is essentially autonomous when it comes to the finer details of how the public schools are run in that county; the county superintendent carries a bit of weight and answers to a state superintendent. As long as certain requirements are fulfilled (ie, federal requirements and mandates), the counties have quite a bit of leeway.

I agree with fable's statement that the "worst" in the US originally came from Europe. Originally, the US (and Canada as well) was inhabited by native American nations, invaded by European colonial powers, settled by the often disillusioned, disenfranchised, ostracized, or opportunistic from Europe, and then used by said colonial powers to send cotton, tobacco, wheat and corn to the motherland. Taxation gripes and snooty colonial governors basically fomented the American Revolution.

[Brynn]

[QUOTE=Chanak]I agree with fable's statement that the "worst" in the US originally came from Europe. Originally, the US (and Canada as well) was inhabited by native American nations, invaded by European colonial powers, settled by the often disillusioned, disenfranchised, ostracized, or opportunistic from Europe, and then used by said colonial powers to send cotton, tobacco, wheat and corn to the motherland. Taxation gripes and snooty colonial governors basically fomented the American Revolution. [/QUOTE]

Let's not deepen the opposition, I say