Do American and European values differ?

Nearly four out of five Europeans asked in one poll said they thought Americans and Europeans have different values. Almost as many Americans agreed. But the Inglehart Values Map (see p.257 of Free World) shows a much more complex picture. Do you think we have different values? If so, what’s the biggest difference?

Debate - Page 2/13

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Bernard Baars, USA

As a US citizen born in Europe, I have become increasingly concerned about the direction Europe is taking. The deep irrationality of anti-Americanism among the "chattering classes" is especially disturbing. One can be a rational critic of US policies, but this is something very different. It is compounded of rage and envy, not unlike a bad case of adolescent rebellion. Europe has been dependent far too long on the US for its defense. It is time to cut NATO loose.

Christian L, London, UK

Susan from Tennessee highlights of some of the differences between American and European values in a helpful and insightful way.
Susan presents the American sunshine scenario, if you like. Yes Americans have more of a can-do attitude than Europeans, who arguable tend to moan and complain more. Americans WERE more individualist once. Etc etc. She goes on however tellingly to say that if one community passes laws which don‚t suit you, you always have the choice to move somewhere else. The laws should „reflect‰ the community and be as localised as possible, one reasons why many Americans dislike federal laws and intervention of any kind. Susan ˆ you sound like an intelligent woman. If you study the history, politics and the laws of your great country, you‚ll find that all defence of so called states rights, of local laws, of community standards etc always boil down to the same thing: UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF PARTS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. The greatest defenders of this kind of thinking, have historically been racist southerners who didn‚t like the federal government to impose its views of right and wrong on them. Did you know that the last overtly racist law in the US wasn‚t struck down until 1967? It was a Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage. The Supreme Court case which lead to it being struck down was - with exquisite irony ˆ called Loving v. Virginia. You ask African-Americans throughout the South, if the choice of leaving has ever been a real one. Choice, to have any meaning, must imply ability to exercise it. What is your vaunted individualism or sense of community worth, if all it boils down to is to be able to persist in your racism, your sexism and your homophobia ˆ without federal intervention?And where would you tell those belonging to some unfortunate minority, to move, when the „community passing a law Europeans find absurd‰ is the State Senate or perhaps the US House of Representatives? I‚m of course talking about the so called Defence of Marriage Act, and the amendment banning marriage between people of the same sex ˆ i.e. enshrining overt discrimination in the constitution (state or federal).
When the „community‰ going loony is the whole state, and possibly the federal union ˆ where the heck are you to go?? America in 2004 is a country I no longer understand. In another of history‚s ironies, the republican leadership- the fundamentalist Christians, neo-cons and sundry bible-bashers, actually have more fundamentally in common with the Mullahs of Iran than they do with contemporary Europeans. They‚re all striving for a theocracy ˆ they only differ as to which particular stripe.
How on earth did things get this way?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington USA

How wonderful to hear from you again, too, FancyPants from NewYawk. We'll have to do something about your serial lying, however. It really is becoming quite a nuisance having to wade through your interminable Lies.
>The "Red State" mentality is represented by the program of hate furthered by a regressive, repressive, culturally out of touch, white-supremacist, hate-filled Republican party. You remember Zell Miller, Phil?Yes, I remember Zell Miller. He's a registered Democrat :-) By the way, the "Red State" mentality won the elections. Deal with it :-)
>Dearest Phil, almost all of the American propaganda coming out of occupied Iraq is replete with racist American hate. Racist American soldiers are now under investigation for multiple murders and executions of innocent, brave Iraqi freedom-fighters.
Dearest FancyPants, our noble and heroic forces in Fallujah are not racists in the least, but the criminal and murdering insurgent scum which our troops are fighting certainly are since they refer to our brave US forces as "Jews". Our troops will be exonerated, as they rightfully should be, regardless of whether you like it or not :-)

>The international terrorist and most hated human being in the world, G.W.Bush, personally seeks to amend the American constitution to ban gay marriage.
The noble and heroic leader of the US George Bush who was elected by the majority of voters in the US is in perfect lockstep with the majority voters in 11 US states which all banned recognition of gay marriages as well. If you have a problem with that, kindly go live somewhere else. "We" the majority will not be "dictated to" by "You" the Minority. We will Rule, you will live with it or you will leave.
>Hey Phil, why has Al Jazeera been outlawed by Bush's puppet Alad Allahwi?
Because Al-Jazeera is known in the Arab World as "Radio Al-Qaeda", and for good reason.
>In spite of this, the Red Crescent suggested yesterday that as many as 800 civilians had been killed during the bombardment of Falluja.
And I suggest that their "count of civilian casualties" is fiction. Too bad they couldn't find 800 bodies, huh?
>>Phil, America gave Saddam Hussein the very chemical weapons that Saddam used to gas the Kurds.
And therefore we are completely and totally blameless. We only sold him ingredients. He used them. Therefore he and he alone is responsible for the consequences of that use of those ingredients. Once again, the US is not "responsible" for any actions of anyone else in the world. If I legeally gave or sold someone a gun and told them to use it only for strict self-defense, and they turned around and proceeded to murder five kids at a daycare, they would be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and probably executed, and rightly so. I, on the other hand, would never even see the inside of a courtroom. I wouldn't spend so much as an hour in jail. Nor should I, ever. "I" can sell someone a weapon, and be completely not "responsible" for someone else's illegal actions.
>The corrupt Reagan administration knew exactly what they were doing in insuring that their puppet Saddam received illegal chemical weapons from American companies: it was to seek revenge on the Iranians for freeing themselves of the other criminal American puppet, the Shah of Iran.
Ah, my dear FancyPants, unfortunately once again you display your ignorance. The Shaw of Iran was a wise and noble leader who should have remained in power in Iran for the rest of his life. Under his leadership, Iran was a prosperous, politically moderate, Western-oriented, peaceful country. In all of his years on the throne, the Shaw of Iran never once sent hundreds of thousands of brainwashed Iranian fanatics to their deaths in battle "armed" only with plastic "Keys to Heaven" and copies of the Qu'uran. And the Reagan Administration (one of Amerca's greatest Presdencies) never "insured" that Saddam would receive "illegal chemical weapons". It is a well-documented Fact and a matter of public record that Saddam set up an elaborate network of sham "front" companies to purchase prohibited goods. And Saddam was never the US's "puppet", either. We in the West were "his" puppets. He skillfully played the US off against the USSR, just as many other Third World thugs did.
Again Phil, in addition to the poison gas itself, G.H.W. Bush himself gave Saddam sattelite data in order to poison gas the Iranian troops who were attempting to protect their country against an American-inspired invasion initiated by the American puppet Saddam in 1979.
Again, my dear FancyPants, satellite intel is not an "offensive weapon" at all. You appear to have difficulty understanding the difference between "offensive" and "defensive". Satellite intel is not a "weapon" at all. It is Data. And that satellite intel was never used for "offensive" purposes. It was used by Saddam's regime to blunt Iranian Attacks upon Iraqi positions. Please note the meaning of the word "attacks", FancyPants: The people who are doing the "Attacking" (the Iranians) were on the OFFENSIVE, the people doing the blunting of those attacks (the Iraqis) were on the DEFENSIVE. Also, the invasion of Iran was never "American-inspired", and you have not offered any "evidence" to demonstrate that it ever was so, presumably because you can't find any. >Phil, the American international terrorist Henry Kissinger commented that it was wonderful that the Iraqis and the Iranians were killing each other at such a great rate. Henry Kissinger also helped Augusto Pinochet in Chile get away with the murder of 30,000 innocent Chilean citizens
You appear to continually run the words "American". "international" and "Terrorist" together constantly as though they were all one word. Dr. Henry Kissinger was easily America's most brilliant Secretary of State and a man easily deserving of America's heartfelt thanks for his service. Did you "personally observe" Henry Kissinger kill anyone at all in Chile? No? Then your claim is a Lie, isn't it? And how many of those so-called "innocent Chilean civilians" were actually Marxist guerrilas trying to overthrow the governing party and who richly deserved their deaths? About half, I'd say.
>Hey my buddy Phil, in the Tuskegee experiments the American government monitored the progress of syphillitic infections in African-Americans, lying to them about their infections and refusing to supply them with the medications that could have terminated the syphillus. Some of the African-Americans died because of this refusal to supply medications.
Hey my amigo FancyPants, in the Tueskeegee experiments there was no "cure" or any "medications that could have terminated the syphillus" for many years after the start of the program. If I contract a deadly illness all entirely on my own (say, HIV) through my own personal stupidty and carelessness (say, having unprotected sex outside of my marriage, or deliberately using illegal injected drugs) and the government has me participate in a study to monitor the disease, but has no "cure" for the illness, then the government is not "waging biological warfare" on me at all; I would have brought my illness on myself, and I, ALONE am to blame for my condition.
>This is biological warfare, just the same as the criminal experiments performed by the Nazi Dr. J. Mengela and his biological and acclimatizing experiments on concentration camp inmates.

Rubbish, as usual. Not treating someone for a self-inflicted illness, and not having any "cure" for that self-inflicted illness, is not "biological warfare". The syphillus sufferers' condition was unfortunate, but they brought their illness upon themselves through their own actions. I agree that they certainly should have been given medications to treat their illnesses (once such medications became available), however at the start of the Tuskeegee Study no such medication was available or even existed. By contrast, the concentration camp inmates did not in any way, shape or form bring their horrific circumstances upon themselves and were not al all responsible for their situation. They would not even have been in their situation at all were it not for the Nazi Party and its members such as Joseph Mengele. Were it not for him, there would have been no experiments.
>Noam Chomsky is not a "chimp," he is not an animal, Phil.
Noam Chomsky is a murderer-loving Communist Pig. His actions and views are chimp-like in that he appears incapable of any views other than mindlessly parroting the same "American Imperialist International Terrorist" propaganda over and over again, as though mindlessly spouting the same Party Line somehow makes Lies into Truth and Truth into Lies. >Oh my woefully misinformed Phil, the American naval forces had Japan completely surrounded. The Japanese homeland had absolutely no fuel even for their fighter planes to defend the major Japanese cities against the criminal American fire-bombing campaign. The Japanese were incapable of defending Japan.
The American forces would never had invaded Japan because Japan was already defeated. The use of nuclear weapons had nothing to do with saving American lives. It was to promote the American hegemony and to deter the Russians who were threatening territorial expansion into Manchuria and China. The Americans were scared of this possibility and not of the Japanese.
Oh my woefully informed little FancyPants, it's clear that you need to spend some time studying the Truth and Facts of History and less time mindlessly spouting the same Lies over and over again. The American naval forces never had Japan "completely surrounded" and had suffered thousands of casualties from fanatical Japanese resistance and Japanese suicide pilots ("kamikaze") on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The US government was determined to avoid an Okinawa-like slaughter from one end of Japan to the other, and rightly so. And the American forces were already preparing to invade Japan, precisely because Japan was not "already defeated" and had not surrendered. The use of nuclear weapons had everything to do with saving American lives and nothing whatsoever to do with "pronoting American hegemony". And the USSR attacked Manchuria AFTER the first atomic bomb was dropped. One again, kindly stop Lying.
>Come on now Phil, even supporters of the 1945 American nuclear terrorism of Japan now admit that the second nuclear bomb was completely unneccessary for their tactical purposes.Which "supporters"? What are their names? The use of the Bomb was not done for "tactical" reasons but rather for strategic reasons -- namely, to force Japan to capitulate once and for all.
See also http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Reply to WJ, UK
>Augusto Pinoche, The Shah of Iran, The current House of Saud, would you like me to go on?
Please do. The Shaw of Iran was a noble and decent leader, and his fall from power was a tragedy. Under his reign, Iran was a civilized, prosperous, middle-class country. It maintained diplomatic relations with Israel. In his entire reign on the throne, Iran never made war on its neighbors. It never sent hundreds of thousands of young, untrained, brainwashed and fanatical Iranians into combat armed only with plastic "keys to Heaven" and copies of the Koran, like sheep to be slaughtered. It didn't persecute, torture or slaughter the people of the Ba'hai faith. Iran after the fall of the Shaw has become a hideous, evil, horrific regime in which a murderous Islamic theocracy has taken the country 1,000 years back in time and which uses shock troops (so-called "Revolutionary Guards") to beat and kill anyone who dares speak out. Life was better for Iranians under the Shaw. And they know it, too. Some Iranians have privately told Western journalists that they wish the USA would invade Iran, too.
>While I appreciate that these 'collatoral' casualties were unintended, if you lost a family member to the army that invaded your country, or saw people you relate to (Muslims/Arabs) suffering under under an occupying army, wouldn't you feel anger and hostility towards those people?
No, I would feel gratitude to the invaders for liberating my country from a murderous tyrant. I would realize that transitioning from a murderous dictatorship to a free and democratic country is not an overnight affair, and that the presence of foreign 'invading' forces is necessary until such time as democratic institutions in the country are strong enough to stand on their own. (Transitioning formerly Nazi Germany to democracy took more than 10 years, cost hundreds of millions of dollars and required the stationing of US forces there for decades after the war actually ended). And if I lost a family member during the process of seeing my country liberated, I would grieve for them because they did not live to see their country freed, but I would understand that this is an inevitable cost of conflict and that there is no "blame" to attach to the liberating forces. That's the reason why today, almost sixty years after the end of WW II, Germans do not "hate" us for having had to kill Germans while conquering Nazi Germany, but regard us as Liberators who helped to Free them from the Nazi regime.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Reply to Robert, NY
>There would be no significant Islamic terrorism if we had just let them alone instead of interfering in their affairs.
I disagree. I do not believe that Islamic terrorists wage terrorism against us because of having supposedly "interfered in their affairs". I do not believe that Islamic terrorists wage terrorism against us because of "what we do". Rather, I believe that Islamic terrorists wage terrorism against us because of "who we are". I believe that they wage terrorism against us because they mistakenly see us as "corrupt, decadent, God-less, materialist, secular Unbelieving Infidels". The irony of this is, they are mistaking us for being Europeans. The Europeans, in turn, dislike the US because they see all Americans as being pious, non-decadent, Godly, non-secular Believing Christians. Rather ironic, I think: the Islamic terrorists despise the US because they mistakenly think we are secular Godless Europeans. And the Europeans despise the US because they accurately know that we are not secular Godless Europeans.

>If we hadn't supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, shot down a commercial aircraft full of muslim civilians, stationed troops all over the Persian Gulf region and in Saudia Arabia and provided billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel every year we wouldn't be in this mess.(1) I see nothing "wrong" with having played both sides against each other at the time of the Iran-Iraq War. We supplied war materials to the Iraqi side at the time, not because Saddam Hussein was our "buddy" (he wasn't) but because it was in our strategic national interest to do so and thereby prevent the Iranians (who were maniacal and insane) from overrunning Iraq and ultimately the entire Persian Gulf and exporting their radical Islamic revolution. Our national interest in preventing the Iranians from prevailing, temporarily dovetailed with Saddam's interest in preventing the Iranians from prevailing. However, we didn't help Saddam "win"; we didn't supply offensive weapons (tanks or aircraft, for example) to Iraq. We merely helped keep Iraq from "losing", until both sides had exhausted themselves and were ready to declare peace.
As for our having armed the Iranians, I feel that Pres. Reagan (one of the greatest Presidents the US has ever had, in my opinion) did what he had to do in order to secure the freedom of the Americans who were being held hostage in Iran. I don't have a problem with that. (2) The shootdown of the Iran Air civilian jetliner was a tragic accident, for which the US promptly apologized, accepted full responsibility, and paid reparations, as rightly we should have. The accident was unfortunate and tragic, but it was understandable given the location and the circumstances at the time.
(3) The US stationed troops all over the Persian Gulf and in Saudi Arabia for a very good reason: we were ASKED to do so by the host countries. The Arab countries along the Persian Gulf coast were not eager to publicly announce it, but the reality is that they were far more scared of the Iranians, or of a potential Iraqi invasion (Kuwait; Saudi Arabia) than we in the US were. They wanted and needed some protection. We also had not only the Right but furthermore the Obligation to protect our national interests, including access to oil. There's nothing wrong with that; we in the US shouldn't be at all "embarassed" or "ashamed" for standing up and protecting or defending our national interests.
(4) We provide billions of dollars worth of aid and weaponry to Israel for some very good reasons, and in my opinion we should absolutely continue to do so. Israel is the US's staunchest and closest ally, and the only democracy in the Middle East. Unlike many of the simpering and cynical European countries, the Israelis are not just our allies; they're our friends. We have, in my opinion, a Moral Responsibility and Obligation to help them. In my opinion it would be Morally Wrong for America to not to provide the Israelis with the tools they need to defend their country's safety, sovereignty and very existence from terrorists determined to wipe Israel off the map of the ME. If that makes people in the Arab world angry, Too Bad For Them; they need to get over it. I'm sure that the Arab world would "like us a lot more" if we simply stood by and did nothing while Israel was destroyed. But if that's the price we have to pay to get the Arab world to "like us", then IMHO it is a horrible deal and not worth it. I'd rather do the right thing and support our ally Israel even if every Arab in the world hates us for it and even if it does lead to more terrorism. "Being liked" is not a foreign policy IMO, and I doubt if the USA as a Nation could live with its conscience if it sold out its Friends to Appease its Enemies (unlike the Europeans, whom I frankly think would sell their own grandmothers if it produced the desired results).

Susan, Tennessee

Bill Irving, U.K. wrote:
"I think that Susan of Tennessee's contribution highlights the main difference between American and European values. Like her, many Americans take great pride in their short vacations, long working hours, and capacity to "get by" on less than living wages. In contrast, industrialists and financiers constantly complain about the financial and working concessions forced from them by their European workforces.
Might the value Americans attach to deference and obedience be a legacy of their slave economy? Why are Europeans too proud to make good servants?"
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but that is not what I intended. Most Americans make more than a living wage, including me, but will often be able to climb the ladder economically by working longer hours or taking a second job. We don't expect a third party to make us wealthier simply because we want more money.
Unemployment here is very low and even the lowly burger flipper makes much more than minimum wage and is usually a student rather than someone that supports a family.
I don't think Americans have a sense of deference at all. In fact, I think Americans probably tip more than the average European or Canadian in part because we want to let a service person know that they are not a servant but performing a personal service of value.
We believe in hard work because it is usually rewarded in a better salary and/or advancement. I was talking with a Chinese immigrant from the People's Republic about work. She had watched an episode of an American TV show called "The Appentice" with Donald Trump. We talked about differences in Chinese and American workers and she pointed out that a Chinese person would feel bad about themselves, would feel they were "no good," if they didn't work hard and make the company successful. She also said that a Chinese worker would admit they were wrong more often if they made a mistake and wouldn't try to get another person fired. She thinks Americans work hard but one difference is that Chinese workers always work a little bit "off the clock" to show their companies they care about the good of the company and not just themselves. We don't go quite that far. :-)

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Reply to Bill Irving, U.K.
I do not believe that many Americans attach value to "deference" or "obedience" with regard to their jobs, wages, benefits or working conditions. There are unions in America, and there are strikes over basic issues like wages. However, in my opinion, people in America have much greater respect for the businessman, the business community and the private sector. "The Business of America is Business" is an old and famous slogan. In my opinion, Business is not "Them" in America; Business is "Us". Business is not always "The Enemy" in America; Business is the respected provider of jobs, decent wages, good benefits and other opportunities. I believe that Americans understand, correctly IMO, that they are not "guaranteed" or automatically "entitled" to jobs, that employers do not exist to "support them", and that their personal fortunes rise and fall with those of their employers.

Fancypants, NYC, USA

To Robert, NY:
You are a gentlemen and a scholar.
Thank you.

Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea

As an outsider looking in (a Canadian) I can definately say that the US and Europe have vast differences and those differences are growing. There are four main areas where the European (exclusive of Britain) and the US are different.
1. As Phil Karasick pointed out, the Europeans emphasize "Human Rights" where the Americans emphasize "Individual Rights". Human Rights are generally group rights based on such things as race, religion and perhaps sexual orientation. Individual Rights are just that - rights based on a one person at a time consideration. In America individual right do (less now than formerly) trump group rights when the two conflict.
This is one of the great differences, and one which continually upsets the European (Social Democratic) ideals of social justice. For example the American Declaration of Independance held that it was a self evident truth that every man should have "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I would also emphasise that he had the right to pursue happiness but not necessarily the right to have it. His own efforts were to make the difference. The noble words of the French Revolution of liberte', egalite' and fraternite' are not the same thing they are more in the nature of group rights.
2. The British and American (Common Law) theory of law is that the "people" have all rights as God-give. The people grant powers to the government to govern for the common good. This ideal is biblical - Old Testament. To follow this further, try reading a little Thomas Paine - one of the fathers of the US nation.
The European idea appears to be that the state hands down and guarantees rights to the people, either individually or in groups. To take that difference to its end. Under the Anglo-American systems I have the right to do anything unless it is specifically forbidden in law. Under the European system I have the right to do any of those things guaranteed to me by the state.
3. Many Europeans think of Freedom OF Religion as being the same thing as Freedom FROM Religion. They are not the same thing. The United States indeed does have separation of church and state but that does not mean that the Americans or large parts of them consider America to be a secular country. It was not a secular country in 1776 and really never has been since then.
What the world is seeing now is simple a revival of that religious spirit that has waxed and waned for the past 200 years or so. For some reason most Europeans are threatened by this. They should not be.
Freedom of religion means or should mean that the religious have the right, and as they see it, the duty to vote with their beliefs in mind. Those who have no or profess no religious faith or belief cannot understand just how fundamental those beliefs are to the people that have them.
4. The United States and most Americans have whole- heartedly adopted Israel and its existance in the "Holy Land" as an gift from God. They will continue to back Isreal in the middle east whether the Europeans, and particularly the French and Germans like it or not. Inconvenient as this might be to many Europeans, it like American Individualism is not going to go away.
It would be good advice to the Europeans not to antagonize the biggest, toughest nation. A nation that has saved their sorry butts three times in the 20th Century. WWI, WWII and the Cold War are the three.

Gerard, Spain (British born)

The answer is quite simple. Europe ( if there really is such a thing) has chosen the welfare state as opposed to a cannibalistic battle for survival and power amongst those few people who can afford it, wich is what the US ( not America) has chosen. Europe has chosen that every member of society must have access to universal healthcare; education, etc ( even if he doesn´t belong to a wealthy powerful family who can pay his way through life) The US has chosen a far different aproach, wich, in my opinion ( and even though I consider myself agnostic) is far from "christian": How can a country where if you aren´t part of the the leading wealthy minority you are left to rot without any support at all in case of falling pray to disease or unemployment consider itself "christian" or talk about "values"?. Right know, it´s Europe who safeguards moral values, not the USA, a country which has elected a mildly retarded war criminal as its head of state, even though it seems quite ovbious that he is nothing but the tool of the leading oligarchy.
And last but not least; what moral values can someone claim to defend after using the deaths of thousands of innocents ( 9-11) to invade a country ( that, and this I believe is quite obvious, housed a cruel and ruthless dictator) for the sole purpose of taking control of the oil resources of said country, leaving it in ruins and total chaos?

A. Civalleri, Italy

IMHO one of the main differences relates to COMPETITION value. I recall an american friend of mine during a 2 weeks summer holiday on a sailing boat in the mediterranean sea; he went crasy racing with every boat we met no matter the differences between the boats and when surpassing he showed them fhe V fingers (in my opinion the V sign was interpreted by the relaxed unaware competitors as something related to their wifes behaviour).
In US since you are born they teach you that life is strong competition, you have to fight anytime and everywhere in order to succeed, to prove you are the best, the NUMBER ONE.
In EU we like games, sport, market competition, but in my opinion we usually dont like spoiling our lives whith stressing extreme competition aimed to gain wealth and power; no doubt this is a looser aptitude but on the other hand you will enjoy a more quiet and relaxed life.I dont feel the obsessive need of more wealth and power,am not reach but am satisfied with what i got.
This of course reflects on social life, so the differences between the US and EU social securities,
with more Government support in EU.
At Goverment level US are the NUMBER ONE of the World but their competition value implies that they cannot accept any international law or authorithy which could affect their power: hence the arrogance most countries notice in the US Government behaviour.
In EU we would like a strong and efficient UN (not the present one) while US in priciple disapprove any kind of Superinternational Authorithy; US think they are the Superinternational Authority and act consequently.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Poll: Majority gives Bush good job approval mark.Fifty-five percent of Americans like the way President Bush is handling his job, while the approval rating for his Iraq policies is slightly lower, according to the first full CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll following the November 2 presidential election.

Forty-two percent of those polled don't believe Bush is doing a good job. Sixty percent have a positive opinion of Bush, versus 39 percent with the opposite view.

Responding to whether the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, 47 percent said yes, and 51 percent said no.

Asked who was winning the war in Iraq -- the United States and its allies or insurgents -- 46 percent of respondents said neither side, and 44 percent said the United States and its supporters.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/opinion.poll/index.html

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil:
>Here is a view of "European values", from a European:
Vatican aide says Europe squeezing out God
Top adviser sees 'aggressive secularism' as threat to religion <....>
Thank you Phil. Another example of how you have no understanding of Europe and its values. The statement you quote was made in relation to the debate about Rocco Buttiglione, the commissioner proposed by Mr. Baroso, president to be of the European Commission, for the directorate-general of justice, freedom and security. Now Mr. Buttiglione would´ve been an ideal candidate for the Vatican, since he is a most fundamental catholic. Small wonder that the Vatican didn´t like it when he was dismissed. Mr. Buttiglione held that being gay was a sin. He also held that a woman´s place was to be a mother in a family under the protection of a man. Oh, and he was also implicated in an embezzlement case in Italy. Are these the values you´re talking about, Phil?
Also, your post shows you know nothing about notable european religious figures. Let me tell you one or two things about this Cardinal Ratzinger you quote. He is not an unknown in Germany. He used to be the archbishop of Munich and is now the deacon of the college of cardinals in the Vatican. He repeatedly held that catholicism is the only true religion, to the exclusion even of any protestant belief. He repeatedly refused to even discuss basic ritual beliefs of the catholic church (one of them being the literal transmutation of wine into blood during Eucharist). So if you quote him, Phil, you only show your pronounced preference for religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is not a european value. It´s probably also not an american value, but I´ll let the americans be the judge of that.

Jessi, Boston

I almost ran away from this debate, but I suppose my voice is better than my silence, don't you? Now...somewhere along the line this became a nasty battle of the wits between a few select people, who went off on a tangent argument about US history. I was going to ask you to get back on track, but the worst of it seems to be between US citizens, which actually supports Gabor's sentiments: that this question is simply too vague. How can we identify the differences between the US and Europe when neither is united in its own ideas? Personally, I was incensed by some of the things I read on here; I took notes and was all set to comment on things I either agree or disagree with. Until I remembered the topic, and the broader question suddenly made much more sense to me.
Quite simply, we need to stop looking at them as "US" and "European" values. We all have different IDEAS, but the same general values. We, ALL of us, value freedom; long life; happiness for our children; not having to worry about war; times with our families. And is it not true that if you stab us, we all bleed; starve us, we all go hungry; hurt us, and we cry? And if that's not good enough for you (and forgive a young college liberal for being so frank), we all shit, fart and piss the same, OKAY?!?
Never mind who goes to church more often, who created the first weapon, and who said what. If we keep arguing about these things, we lose our humanity, and before you know it, fifty years have gone by and our lives are behind us and to no avail. Forgive me for sounding like such an idealist (I am but 20 and have the hope of my future backing me up) but we're more likely to reach the sky if we aim for it than if we stand around looking at our feet.
I consider myself an American, but I also consider myself an Irish, Scottish and Italian girl (homelands of my ancestors), so if the US and Europe have very different values, then my sense of identity is truly confused!
Peace and love,
Bless you all.

Susan Starke, USA

To Fancypants:
Why do you continue to live in America if you hate it so? And why the "ground zero" moniker? I live in a NJ town that lost 33 lives in the 9/11 attack , I had to go to two funerals in Oct. of '01, and I don't go on and on about it. You seem obsessed with American racism, yet find me a less racist country than the US and I'll eat my hat (OK , maybe Brazil). Furthermore: drop the "red state'" stuff. In my "blue" state, Bush got 45% of the vote.

Jan Paul, USA

A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious.
From the web site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
The divide in America is not so much along religious lines as many would think. It is more along the line of Socialism vs. Capitalism. This is true to a degree in Europe where we see many "new" European countries cutting taxes, privatizing Social Security and encouraging the "wealthy" to come and invest in their country to create businees, jobs, and tax revenues. It is true that many view "permissive" societies as lacking the discipline needed to concentrate more on the health of the society than on the individual. The majority, for whatever reason, still hold to the "old" culture of the "frontier" where individualism usually led to death and unity led to survival even though personal "rights" were sacrificed. Sexual promiscuity of any kind outside of marriage was viewed as a breaking of "trust." As a result, in those old days, a person who couldn't be trusted to control his "urges" couldn't be trusted to do business with. Humorously, ladies of the evening, mistresses, and other manifestations of "lust" were also previlent and as long as certain conditions of "propriety" were met, these were tolerated even with Presidents in every century of this countries history. But, doing these things openly and without regard for "proper" behavior resulted in the disdain of one's fellow citizens. Didn't have so much to do with religion as with culture and how people who depended on each other for survival were expect to show proper restraint, discipline, and respect for "proper" relationships between private citizens and business partners.
Now we are engaged in a struggle in the U.S. to see which culture most Americans want. The "old" culture of "proper" behavior where eveyone knew what was expected of them (even though at times hypocritica. but accepted by the majority because it set known standards) or the "new" culture of "tolerance" for a more permissive way of interacting with each other (more room for independent living but less viable for some forms of community standards).
This struggle is going on around the world. Even the current war on terrorism revolves around a group of people who said exactly what women could do, what children could learn and what "one" form of government was acceptable to Islamic people in every country of the world whether or not those Islamic people wanted that control. The Talaban and their militant arm Al-Queda made no bones about the fact that eventually the whole world needed to comply with that "one" form of government. They claimed this was not "negotiable." Much of their militancy was directed at many less powerful nations and success after success led them to believe they were ready to bring the U.S. to their knees economically if not by actual invasion, thus their choice of targets to some extent.
It is also the intent of some in this struggle to divide not only the U.S. but the U.S. and Europe or any other nation that calls itself an ally of the U.S. and vice versa. They are even attempting to divide "Old" and "New" Europe in some cases. Their goal is to bring the U.S. down by these subtle attacks (which actually cause more damage than the attacks by the terrorists)and win it over to socialism or at least some system that isn't capitalism because they view capitalism as evil. Isn't it interesting though that many thriving economies are moving TOWARDS more capitalism or deregulation, or privatization and away from more government control. China, So. Korea, New Zealand, Austrailia, Russia, Romania, Sovakia, Ireland, etc. Which countries have declining economies or slow growth economies? Look at France, Germany, and even the U.S. is moving down the list of coutries with the most progressive GDP real growth rates. Here is the world ranking from the web site
http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_real_growth_rate_0.html
Remember this is not their GDP ranking but their real GDP growth rate as of 2003. Many have very low GDP but, are coming from much lower rates or even negative rates. It still doesn't paint a very pretty picture for the U.S. or France or Germany or the UK
1 Equatorial Guinea 20.00
11 China 8.00
19 Korea, South 6.20
32 Ireland 5.20
49 Romania 4.50
52 New Zealand 4.40
57 Russia 4.20
71 Slovakia 4.00
79 Australia 3.60
116 United States 2.45
122 Luxembourg
147 United Kingdom 1.60
154 Poland 1.30
164 France 1.00
176 Germany 0.40
The concern over "social" issues is a genuine concern for many here and in Europe, but, for many who want to change capitalism here and abroad to socialism, those "social" concerns are a smoke screen for their real agenda. Socialism isn't bad and is based on good intentions but until we are closer to an "utopian" world in which people are more willing to give up certain desires for material things or even power, capitalism seems to work better by rewarding "greed" while also attempting to control it as was the case with the prosecution of Enron. Probably many other corrupt people here and abroad need prosecution but even in Socialist countries we find greed, corruption, and oppression of the poor for the benefit of the powerful. In some socialist countries, are not the people who have the government contracts achieving wealth and power as much as some in capitalistic countries? Which system can actually generate more tax revenue in the long run to pay for social programs? The ones with declining economies or the ones with rising economies? In which system will the working man and woman actually have a better chance of rising from poverty? These are the questions we need to ask, not who is being divided from who.
Remember too, that the Americans who fought for Europe and fought in this war on terrorism are made up of Poles, Germans, French, Dutch, Russians, Slovakians, Iraqi's, Iranians, and yes, even some Palestinians and Israeli's. Americans come from all over the world. My ancestory is Polish and Irish. I was adopted by a German who fought for the U.S. in World War I. I lost a brother in WW II fighting for European Freedom. I love the U.S. and I love Europe and I love hard working, freedom fighting, patriots from any country in the world that uplifts the oppressed and beats down the oppressors. I served during Viet Nam and enlisted, wasn't drafted because I am willing to fight and if need be, die, for any people who are being kept from freedom to choose their own form of government whether it be socialism or capitalism or some religious form or some other secular form as long as it is by choice and not coercion. I'd fight for Europe again if it was threatened just as quickly as I'd fight for my own country. Many "Americans" with European backgrounds would. We are proud of our country but many are still proud of their previous "homeland" too.
We can disagree without being divided as some are trying to do.

Susan, Liberal Democrat, Philadelphia, PA, USA

"Some people earlier in this debate seem to view a discussion of whether America and Europe differs on values as an opportunity to air all kinds of prejudice, old grudges and perceived historic wrongs. I don∫t think that is a fruitful way forward, nor does it answer the question at hand."
Yes, I brought up European anti-Semitism, but I was talking abut November 2004. I was not bringing up historic wrongs.
There was a memorial for Kristallnacht in Oslo, Norway. Jewish organizations and any symbol of Jewishness was banned as being too inciteful.
Some Europeans are believe that the the invasion of Iraq was done for Israel's benefit. This conjures up classic anti-Semitic sterotypes of Jewish power and dual loyalty. When did the European left start channeling Pat Buchanan?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian:>Thank you Phil. Another example of how you have no understanding of Europe and its values.
On the contrary, thank you Michel. Another example of how you have no understanding of America and its values, and another example of your own intolerance in Europe of religion.>Mr. Buttiglione held that being gay was a sin.
And in the eyes of literally tens of millions of Americans, Mr. Buttiglione was absolutely right. In the eyes of these millions upon millions of Americans (and billions more in other countries), being gay IS a Sin. It's a violation of the fundamental laws and precepts of no less than three great religions of the world that are accepted by literally billions of people: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. >He also held that a woman´s place was to be a mother in a family under the protection of a man.
And that's how it should be, in the view of millions of Americans as well. I personally believe that women, like men, should have the right to take on any job and aspire to any position that a man would. However I also believe that there is no greater task deserving of much more reward and recognition, no job more important, than that of bringing a child into this world and caring for, feeding, housing, clothing and nurturing that child to adulthood. And Motherhood is the very definition of that. And millions of American women feel that their greatest, most rewarding job is that of bringing that new life into thr world and protecting it. And I for one believe they have the right to that opinion and deserve support -- not being belittled by so-called European "elites".>Oh, and he was also implicated in an embezzlement case in Italy. Are these the values you´re talking about, Phil?
Yes, they are. His legal troubles have no bearing on whether millions of people agree with his position on the alleged Sinfulness of being gay. >So if you quote him, Phil, you only show your pronounced preference for religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is not a european value. It´s probably also not an american value, but I´ll let the americans be the judge of that.Fine by me. Religion in general is not a Western European value. Europeans have scorned God and replaced Him with the image of an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Benevolent And Loving Government. Americans largely refuse to subscribe to that view. Millions of Americans also DO believe in the literal, fundamental Truth of the Bible, the Torah and / or the Koran. And they are well within their rights to do so. Whether they are "right" or "wrong" to do so, is not for you to judge. And if that causes you to regard Americans as "religious fundamentalists", fine by me. I don't have a problem with that. Feel free to stay on your side of the Atlantic if you don't want to see any open expressions of religion or religious faith.
But by all means, keep referring to religiously aware Americans as bumbling, idiotic, inbred, unsophisticated and ignorant bumpkins. In fact, I'm counting on it. It's the one polarizing factor that I can guarantee will motivate religious Americans to go to the polls in 2008 and once again vote their beliefs.
> Mr. Buttiglione held that being gay was a sin. He also held that a woman´s place was to be a mother in a family under the protection of a man. Are you therefore telling me, and is it therefore your view and public belief, that anyone who holds the belief that being Gay is a "sin" and not merely a matter of Nature, is therefore "unfit" to hold the political position & job for which Mr. Buttiglione was running?Is it your stated contention that anyone who holds the personal view, religious belief, etc. that being Gay is a matter of Personal Choice, Personal behavior, etc., "cannot be allowed" to hold a public office such as the one that Mr. Buttiglione aspired to?And is it your contention that his openly stated personal beliefs automatically "disqualify" him from consideration for the job?I do hope that you will clarify this matter for me. It appears to me that you are, in fact, acknowledging and agreeing that you and much of Europe believe that anyone who "thinks as Mr. Buttiglione does" must be "eccluded" from the political process, on the grounds that they "Think Wrong", "Promote Bad-Think" or otherwise dare to publicly disagree with the prevailing "Euro Party Line". If this is so, then you have, in fact, confirmed the Vatican spokesperson's stated view that intolerance of religion and of public religious faith not only does exist in Europe, but in fact is growing ever more intolerant of anyone who dares to publicly contradict "The Party Line" or profess beliefs that are conflict with the liberal/leftist populace of Europe. It also appears that on paper, freedom of religion is "allowed"in Europe, but only so long as no one actually admits to having religious beliefs or acknowledges that religion shapes their views on issues. "All the Animals Were Equal, but Some were more Equal than Others". Stalin and George Orwell would have been proud.

Juanma Fernandez, Spain

Call me naive if you wish, but I believe in Europe and the EU. Of course it is, has been and will always be the economy, but let me think of th EU as a community of countries with diferent cultures trying to live together in peace. Let me think of it as the most tolerant place in the world for any individual to live in, regardless religion, regardless colour. In Europe you might be even a communist!
I strongly disagree with Mr Ehn. Rather than decadent I find Europe quite lonely in the vanguard of human rights and tolerance. (I won´t say Europe is Wonderland, there are lots of things to learn and to improve. Inacceptable matters happen in Europe as well.)
In my opinion, decadence is to mix politics with God. Decadence is Guantanamo. Decandence is to kill 100.000 innocents for a handful of oil barrels, or even for the strategic control of the Persian Gulf for the next century. Decadence is death penalty. Decadence is the National Rifle Association. Decadence is to divide the world into good and evil.
In the last few weeks I have followed closely the American presidential election campaign and, for what I have seen, American conservative people are not far from religious fundamentalism. In the way God is present in civil life, they remind me of muslim cultures. The difference is that the US used to be vanguard of civilization. Thus, for me, the US and the EU walk in opposite directions. The EU is evolving while the US are involving. That is decadence.

Susan, Tennessee

Phil writes:
"Yes Americans have more of a can-do attitude than Europeans, who arguable tend to moan and complain more. Americans WERE more individualist once. Etc etc. She goes on however tellingly to say that if one community passes laws which don∫t suit you, you always have the choice to move somewhere else. The laws should ≥reflect≈ the community and be as localised as possible, one reasons why many Americans dislike federal laws and intervention of any kind. Susan √ you sound like an intelligent woman. If you study the history, politics and the laws of your great country, you∫ll find that all defence of so called states rights, of local laws, of community standards etc always boil down to the same thing: UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF PARTS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. The greatest defenders of this kind of thinking, have historically been racist southerners who didn∫t like the federal government to impose its views of right and wrong on them. Did you know that the last overtly racist law in the US wasn∫t struck down until 1967?"
Phil, I find it odd that you think that someone who sounds intelligent would not have studied American history nor understand a region which she has keenly observed during her 48 years of her life here.
First, I wasn't talking about states, I said communities. For instance, in Moore County, Tennessee, where the distillery Jack Daniels is located, bans the sale of liquor. It is a dry county. From the Jack Daniels website:
"How can Jack Daniel's make and sell whiskey in a "dry" county?
Moore County, where Jack Daniel Distillery is located, went "dry" in 1909, just before national Prohibition. Because of a special Tennessee State law that was passed after Prohibition, we've been allowed to make our whiskey in Moore County. Up until January 1995, it could not be sold here. But thanks to a 1994 special act of the Tennessee Legislature, we began selling commemorative decanters containing Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey on January 2, 1995. The distillery makes a $3.50 donation to Moore County for every bottle sold. The commemorative decanters filled with Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey are available only on the premises of the distillery. Other bottles of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey, as well as any other spirit, cannot be legally purchased or sold anywhere else in Moore County."
Many communities ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays until after 12:00 p.m. The rationale is that people will be more likely to get to church sober.
Many communities have sign laws which restrict the signs businesses may use to advertise. Some regulate the size of retail stores and these laws were designed to keep giants such as Walmart out of their communities.
Communities have enacted many strange and silly laws such as making it illegal for animals to have sex within the city limits. It is illegal in my community to ride a mule while sitting on it backwards. Of course, no one enforces these laws or even realizes they exist. Many of the old sodomy laws still exist that were made during the same time period, but they are seldom enforced. When local governments make laws that are unconstitutional and try to enforce those laws, they eventually bubble up through the system where the Supreme Court invalidates them. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) is one of the most important. It ended de facto segregation in the South, but failed to address de jour segregation in the North. Changing the hearts of people is much more important than changing the law as the law follows the heart.
Phil, when you speak of racism, sexism and homophobia running rampant in the southern USA, I have to wonder if you are living in an alternate universe.
I've tried not to engage in any righteous indignation as it seldom serves to change anyone's mind or heart. Slavery is a European institution that was left in the United States and the Caribbean and I feel indignant when Europeans fling racism at us as if it were our original idea.
My European ancestors came to America during the Colonial period. I also have American Indian ancestors because the Europeans thought it "wise" to send settlers into Indian Territory to "mix" with them. These were my Scot ancestors who were banished to Barbados by Cromwell. Their children, who were no longer "indentured for life" (white slaves) came to North Carolina and declared their headrights. They became part of the "successful" group of Colonists engaged in cotton agriculture that satisified the insatiable demand for cotton in Europe. After being encouraged to settle in hostile Indian country, mixing with Indians, then encouraged to fight them when expedient, they became fed up and revolted with Elijah Clarke. I'm certainly not going to defend slavery as it was an evil practice as Lincoln said and many of my relatives fought for the Union as well as the Confederacy, but the evil practice left the South with a whole host of problems they were ill equipped to solve both before and after our Civil War. The caveat is that all of the problems resulted from European social experiments.
We live in a quite different reality today. I own a small company which employs 11 people, 5 of whom are African-American females, 2 white males, 2 white females 1 Chinese immigrant female and 1 native American female. The employee who has been the us the longest is a black female who for years was marginalized by being labeled as retarded and given a mental disability and Social Security check by the federal government. She has many issues with basic living skills because she is a 3rd generation welfare recipient, but she is certainly not retarded. Her oldest daughter will graduate this year from a Catholic university with a degree in Business Administration, her second oldest daughter also works here since she has been unable to focus on attending college because she had a baby in her senior year of high school. It was not a matter of not being able to afford college as it would have been paid for by grants from the federal government.
I asked Steffie (the daughter) when she first became pregnant if she was sure she wanted to have a baby at this time in her life and cautioned her that it would hinder her in her goal of becoming a registered nurse. She told me that she thought having an abortion was sinful, against the teaching of her religion (Southern Baptist) and that she loved babies. All of her friends have babies and she wanted this baby. She certainly loves him and she has had to postpone her higher education because of her decision. She realizes this and she accepts it as her decision. She could collect welfare and go to school, but she says she wants to spend more time with her baby. She works here part-time.
Our office manager is a black woman who is only 24 years old and has 3 children by 3 different fathers, one of whom she married. She is currently divorced and is going to community college at night to enhance her skills. She certainly doesn't want to quit her job to go to school full time and collect welfare because she owns her home and has a new car. The person she admires most is Condozlezza Rice and I have no doubt she voted for W.
Our customer service person is a white woman from Arkansas who many would consider coming from a poor white trash background. Her grandfather was an immigrant from Germany. She has been with us off and on for 4 years (since she was 17) and will graduate next year with a degree in International Business. She also works as a bartender on weekends because she enjoys the social aspect of her job and the extra money.
One of our white males is also from Arkansas, would be considered a classic redneck, whose grandfather was an Italian immigrant. He also takes classes at the local university in web design. Many people do not realize that Arkansas is the only southern state I know of that encouraged immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century. Many of those poor white trash rednecks people so love to ridicule are recent Americans, rather than the old South who promptly left the rural areas during the industrial revolution.
Our accountant is an American Indian female, adopted in Chicago and grew up in a white, very Catholic home. Her adopted parents were 2nd generation Americans. In college, she met a man from Louisiana and married him. He has a masters degree in Education and works for the school system. He belongs to a very fundalmentalist Pentecostal church and they home school thier child, Cheyene, who often visits the office and does her lessons here. Our accountant is also Pentecostal and hasn't cut her hair in 15 years. She is a striking woman being very obese (a sad problem with Native Americans) and outgoing. She spends a month every year on missions to reservations in Arizona.
Our second white male is a native of Michigan who is the least religious, best conventially educated of our employees. He's a typical American male who loves sports and lives to play golf. He is the only one here who may have a bit of latent racism but he gets along well with the rest of us.
My husband is also part of the business and he is a "Live Free or Die" Yankee from New Hampshire. His ancestors include Josiah Bartlett who signed the Declaration of Independence. He holds our truths to be self-evident.
This is the reality of my world -- the racist, sexist South, Phil. What planet do you live you on?

Jan Paul, USA

Probably the better question to ask is "How do we govern based on what our values are."
Most people value life, freedom, security, their own definition of morality, and living comfortably.
Where most people disagree, however, is what governing system best creates the type of society in which those values can be manifested.
Socialism, Communism, Dictatorships, Democracies, capitalism, Republics, Theocracies, etc. all spring to mind. The interesting thing is that there is no "fair" system. Any of the ones mentioned here have good points and bad points based on what you perceive as being able to meet YOUR needs the best. Some have better intentions, as in the case of socialism and communism, but while having good intentions have inherent weaknesses in motivating enough people to advance society as fast as other systems. Capitalsim meets the economic need of society better than most because it motivates people through satisfaction of greed and power which, unfortunately, are still strong motivators. If society is able to satisfy the more base needs of people such as greed and power, and at the same time set controls that prevent the damage excessive greed and power can have, than we see more people reach their full potential.
I would say the values aren't that much different even if religion is included because both secular and religious people want society to give them protection, food, interaction, a sense of belonging, shelter, and a government that meets other basic needs.
However, there is currently a huge struggle going on in the U.S., Europe, and several other countries as to which system meets the most "social" needs. This struggle seems to be centered between socialism and capitalism. Most view the classification of "proper" governing in relation to what is "fair." The problem with this view is that due to the inherent differences in human's perceptions of what is fair, it is virtually impossible to form a government based on "fairness."
The best system is one in which the countr7's economy is so good that it can afford to spend money on as many "social needs" as possible without creating a society that allows undeserving people to take advantage of the social programs and doesn't overspend the tax revenues that system creates. Currently, we have several countries that we can look at and see which ones have the systems creating the most tax revenues and implimenting the most social programs while limiting undeserving membership in those programs and limiting power and greed. So, if you really are un-biased, you can examine each and decide which system meets your "values" but don't expect others to agree with you. The best you can do is argue for your "champion" and respect the perceptions of others.

Stephan Moore, Seattle, USA

It always seems to me that the right-wingers (republicans) in the US are very ironic....
They are religious (Christians, supposedly). But they are also Darwinists because they believe the poor deserve their fate since they are lazy. Even though it is clearly written in the Bible that Jesus explicitly rejected power and riches of this world to suffer the life of a poor and weak person (Luke chapter4).
In many ways, these right-wingers have created a new religion in their own heads where Jesus is American, owns a gun, invariably a republican, and drives a SUV (probably has a million dollar mansion in Texas with a baseball team too).
The unholy alliance of US power (economic + military) with this new brand of religion is actually what Christ rejected. Jesus wasn't interested in these material worldly things, He was/is here on earth to save people...people's souls.
I think the right-wingers are just plain scared:
While on earth, they become very greedy because of their Darwinist views, hording money or use whatever means (including wars) to sustain their lifestyle of consumptionism.
At the same time, they are afraid the fires of hell and want to be in Heaven when they pass from this world--but their sin is for not being merciful to the poor and the less fortunate.
If Jesus were on earth today and says what He says in the Bible, the republicans would nail Him to the cross....
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" (1 Tim 6:10)
"For all who draw the sword shall die by the sword" (Matt 26:52)
"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 7:21)
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt 19:24)
"Blessed are the peacemakers for for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt 5:9)
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matt 5:5)

Jean Michelle, France/Japan

Two thumbs up for Fancypants!!!
If America is so strong, righteous, and powerful...than why is it behaving like a country without confidence? Having to resort to violence and self-arggandizement propaganda as reflected by the thoughts of some of the right-wing contributors here? Remember all the rest of the world is financing American debt. Don't piss us off or we just might want our money back....and that one value understood all the world over whether Europe or US.

Jan Paul, USA

thumbs up and kudos for Fancypants!!!
a True Intellectual and American....as I see it America is at present in the state of primordial fear. Those red staters won't feel safe until they each can purchase a WMD for their own safety.....

John Manney, OH, USA

Two thumbs up and kudos for Fancypants!!!
a True Intellectual and American....as I see it America is at present in the state of primordial fear. Those red staters won't feel safe until they each can purchase a WMD for their own safety.....

Thumper, Out of this World

FancyPants
I too live in NY. How come you're such a douche bag? If you don't like it leave. I'm sure Canada or New Zealand would love to have you.

Brenda, NY

Dear Fancypants,
Sorry to disappoint, but I live in neither a blue state or a red state. I live in the United States of America. I was born in NYC and clearly remember the attack on 9/11 and do not wish to see it repeated in this state or any other.
Your enumeration of items does not reflect "hate America" rhetoric, your venom does. You have an absolute right to disagree with the government, and its policies; but where is your passion and horror about the 3000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? Where is your outrage at the Americans who were beheaded and burned? Where is your outrage about the numerous attacks on our citizens during the last 30 years? It has always fascinated me that those who cry the loudest about the First Amendment, which is preserved and defended for you by the "military-industrial complex", so abhor the people who protect this right for you.
Mine is not the hypocrisy. You have created a category, in your own mind (mindset of the Red State), into which you have placed all supporters of George Bush. You have absolutely no idea what I believe, or think, nor do you care. It would be inconvenient for you to believe anything other than your "creative profile". Not all people who voted for George Bush fit your neat profile. Almost none of the people who voted for him fit the "average profile" of evanglical Christian, high school graduate, homophobe, supporter of creationary teachings, millionaires, security mom, anti stem cell research, NASCAR fan, anti-abortionist, "gun nut", or, as a less than illustrious British paper headlined, dumb. Considering that an "average person" would result in a human being having one ovary and one testicle profiling an "average blue or red state voter" is equally ludicrous.
Based on discussions with the many people I know in NY. more than any other issue, the difference between how people voted was based on whether one believes there is a concerted terrorist threat against us, or not, and how we should defend our country.
No one claims that the US does everything right. But, by the same token, we don't do everything wrong either. It might be nice if you remembered that every once in a while.

Brenda, NY

Robert,
My comments about "hate America first" were specific to the vitriol of another writer and were not intended to suggest that you, or other people who engage in rationale disagreements, should leave America. Venomous writing always suggests people who feel our country is so wrong, in so many ways, would be happier living elsewhere. Americans can disagree about issues but not be hateful toward people who disagree or destructive about the country in which we live.

Michael M., Mann, US

Dear Fancypants (Love that name!)
I could agree with you more, It seems Phil from Seattle has run out of right wing neocon B.S. to refute your fact based arguments, and as usual he like most other neocons has diverted the argument to attacking the messanger and his philosphies (secularism and humanism) instead. What a lame tatic if I ever saw one.

Emmo, University of Kent, UK

Who described Benito Mussolini as that admirable Italian gentleman ?
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933
Who paid an official visit to China, described Beijing as ghastly and warned a group of foreign students If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed ?
The Duke of Edinburgh, 1986
To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.
George Bush Snr, in A World Transformed, 1998
Who urged suspicious attention to any proposed new law or regulation that comes from businessmen, because they have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public ?
Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations Who referred to the Munich chapter of the German Communist Party as chaotic, filthy and full of Jews ?
Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII
With reference to World War One, who said : If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations ?
Winston Churchill, in his Great Contemporaries, 1937 Who said : I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror
Winston Churchill, writing as President of the Air Council, in 1919
Who said of containment against Saddam Hussein We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt ?
Condoleezza Rice in July 2001
Who said of Saddam Hussein He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours ?
Colin Powell in February 2001 Who accepted the Grand Cross of the German Eagle - the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on foreigners - in July 1938, four months after the German annexation of Austria ?
Henry Ford. (The following month a senior executive of General Motors, James Mooney, received a similar medal for his "distinguished services to the Reich".)
Who said Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives ?
General Dwight D.Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and later US President
Who said I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world. ?
Thomas Jefferson
Who said Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those who are cold and are not clothed ?
President Dwight D.Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Immediately following the German invasion of the USSR, which future US President said the following ?
If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way we let them kill as many as possible.
Harry Truman, 1941
Who wrote in 1928 that
It may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini ?
US Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, in his preface to Mussolini's autobiography
Remember please that France also backed Saddam Hussein.
Remember that in total disregard of the EU constitution Article 9 which enshrines the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs, subject "only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others",
France went on to ban the headscarves of Muslim girls,turbans of Sikh men and skull caps of Jewish boys. Chirac is just as right wing as Bush is.
Who said
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war ?
Richard Nixon Real Peace 1983
Who warned of the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the US military-industrial complex and its potential to endanger liberties and the democratic processes ?
President Eisenhower, in his Final Address to the Nation, January 17, 1961
Finally,in his book "Colin Powell: An American Journey," Colin Powell writes scathingly about young, privileged cowards who avoided service in Vietnam:
"I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that (the Vietnam) war. The policies -- determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live -- were an antidemocratic disgrace. I can never forgive a leadership that said, in effect: These young men -- poorer, less educated, less privileged -- are expendable (someone described them as "economic cannon fodder"), but the rest are too good to risk. I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well placed and many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units.Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."

Bob Powelsen, A Canadian living in Korea

Bill Irving wonders if Americans are so hard working as a legacy of slavery. Sorry Bill, they are hard working because they would rather do it for themselves than trust the government to do it for them. Americans don't trust governments enough to become dependent upon them.
The Europeans aren't too proud to make good servants. They are too darned lazy to make good servants.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Hi Susan from Tennessee,
I think that you have me mistaken for someone else. I did not post the comments that you refer to. I did not describe the South as being riddled with racism, sexism or homophobia.

Michel Bastian, France

Trying to swamp me, eh, Phil? Too bad this board is a bit slow, so I´ll have to refrain from writing a book about all the stuff you´re putting up.
>Mr. Buttiglione held that being gay was a sin.
And in the eyes of literally tens of millions of Americans, Mr. Buttiglione was absolutely right. In the eyes of these millions upon millions of Americans (and billions more in other countries), being gay IS a Sin. It's a violation of the fundamental laws and precepts of no less than three great religions of the world that are accepted by literally billions of people: Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Ok, so in your eyes governments should revert to forbidding being gay, possibly even making it an offense punishable by law? Well, you´re entitled to your opinion and there´s nothing I can or want to do about that, but forgive me if I don´t fall back into medieval beliefs along with you. Oh, and don´t lecture me on religious tolerance. You´ve just proven to me that you don´t know what that word means.
>He also held that a woman´s place was to be a mother in a family under the protection of a man.
And that's how it should be, in the view of millions of Americans as well. I personally believe that women, like men, should have the right to take on any job and aspire to any position that a man would. However I also believe that there is no greater task deserving of much more reward and recognition, no job more important, than that of bringing a child into this world and caring for, feeding, housing, clothing and nurturing that child to adulthood. And Motherhood is the very definition of that. And millions of American women feel that their greatest, most rewarding job is that of bringing that new life into thr world and protecting it. And I for one believe they have the right to that opinion and deserve support -- not being belittled by so-called European "elites".
Many european women (and men) believe that, too, and nobody "belittles" them for that (btw, "european elites" is another one of your smokescreen terms; please, at least try to be a bit more precise if you want to insult or "belittle" someone; otherwise, don´t expect to be taken seriously). You´re deliberately avoiding the point: no one in Europe wants to forbid women from having a family and being a mother. But on the other hand, no one wants to force them to be a mother to the exclusion of any other activities either. Mr. Buttiglione was professing such an exclusion (if you don´t believe me, read his published work on the subject). So we´re not in the least talking about religious tolerance here. We´re talking about Mr. Buttiglione wanting to impose his fundamentalist religious views on everybody else (including the two other major religions you mentioned). We´re talking about him professing religious intolerance, Phil.
>Oh, and he was also implicated in an embezzlement case in Italy. Are these the values you´re talking about, Phil?
Yes, they are. His legal troubles have no bearing on whether millions of people agree with his position on the alleged Sinfulness of being gay.
Oh, but you´ll agree with me that a criminal record should have a bearing on him taking up public office, I hope.
>Fine by me. Religion in general is not a Western European value. Europeans have scorned God and replaced Him with the image of an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Benevolent And Loving Government.
Again, you´re playing devil´s advocate, here (if you pardon the pun). "Europeans" have "scorned" God as much or as little as "Americans". Many europeans are religious people, many others aren´t. It´s beside the point. What you´re saying is that "european elites" try to actively suppress any form of religion and that that´s religious intolerance. Wrong again, Phil: quite to the contrary. If you´d ever lived here you wouldn´t be posting such nonsense. It´s not about suppressing religion, it´s about giving every religion (not just christianity or islam) an equal standing and giving every citizen (not just the christians) the possibility to live by their beliefs. It´s about not letting one religion take over government functions, because that would automatically lead to religious intolerance. What´s so difficult to understand about that?
> Americans largely refuse to subscribe to that view.
I actually deny that. I think that most americans would subscribe to religious tolerance, even you, Phil.
>Millions of Americans also DO believe in the literal, fundamental Truth of the Bible, the Torah and / or the Koran. And they are well within their rights to do so. Whether they are "right" or "wrong" to do so, is not for you to judge.
You´ll be surprised, but I actually agree to that :-).
>And if that causes you to regard Americans as "religious fundamentalists", fine by me.
Heck, Phil, do me a favour, read my posts before flaming me. Where did I say I regarded all americans as "religious fundamentalists"? I don´t even have a problem with the Bush administration acting on their beliefs, be they religious or not. I do, however, have a problem with the administration starting unnecessary wars while loudly invoking god, I have a problem with a president that justifies many of his actions with religion, not rational thought, and I have a problem when these actions have a direct impact on my and every other european´s life.
>I don't have a problem with that. Feel free to stay on your side of the Atlantic if you don't want to see any open expressions of religion or religious faith.
Well, unlike you I have lived in America, so I´m not, like you are, talking from my gut instead of my brains about things I have no experience of. I´m also not adverse to going over there again to visit, Bush or no Bush. So feel free to come over here and visit if you want to loose all these stupid prejudices about europeans in general and germans or french in particular. Might be educational. > But by all means, keep referring to religiously aware Americans as bumbling, idiotic, inbred, unsophisticated and ignorant bumpkins. In fact, I'm counting on it. It's the one polarizing factor that I can guarantee will motivate religious Americans to go to the polls in 2008 and once again vote their beliefs.
Don´t count on it. I´ve never described americans that way, and I won´t do it in the future.
> Mr. Buttiglione held that being gay was a sin. He also held that a woman´s place was to be a mother in a family under the protection of a man. Are you therefore telling me, and is it therefore your view and public belief, that anyone who holds the belief that being Gay is a "sin" and not merely a matter of Nature, is therefore "unfit" to hold the political position & job for which Mr. Buttiglione was running? <...>
Again, you´re deliberately misinterpreting what I said to make your point. You know quite well that´s not what I meant, and you also know quite well that´s not the reason why Mr. Buttiglione was not accepted as commissioner. The reason for that is the fact Mr. Buttiglione´s stated beliefs were incompatible with basic values of the EU institutions, namely freedom of religious and sexual orientation. Oh, I know he assured everybody afterwards that his personal beliefs wouldn´t have any bearing on his office, but given his record, that was a bit hard to believe, wasn´t it.

Jerry David, USA

Hiya fancy pants...
George Bush is not the most hated man, terrorist, whatever you want to all him in the world.
Red staters are not anti-gay, anti-women, or particularly anti anything (yes, we do oppose abortion, but what can one say, it is wrong)
President Bush is an honorable man, doing an extremely difficult job, exceedingly well.
Conservatives (red state'ers') are the bastion of freedom and properity for the entire world. America is now, under GWB, the worlds most racially tolerant nation, where everyone has the same opportunity (which is vastly different than ability)
Abortion is a crime against life; the nuclear m/f family model is the most superior in the world; our way of life, freedom loving and capitalistic, the capitalistic economic model promotes personal freedom; and ANWR is a vast oil reserve that would change the geopolitical demographics for all time.
Finally, American liberals and European socialists are the root of all evil... and you can quote me on that.

TWalker, USA

As Gabor Palasti, Miskolc, Hungary, stated - how can you quantify "American Values"? The US is deeply divided right now, and the gulf is widening. I value freedom, which is what Geo. W. Bush claims he values - but the Patriot Act is doing away with that for citizens. I value decency - but as for anyone Bush's regime sees as a potential threat, such as the poor people in Guantanamo, Bush's cabinet is setting new lows for standards in treatment of prisoners. I value respect and civility - however so far as the social climate, between government-sponsored and aggravated fear, a controlling mentality throughout the government, and a population largely comprised of the intellectively lazy, who prefer absolutes such as "us" vs. "them" and truly, honestly cannot see different points of view as valid or worthy of respect, we have little decency and intelligence left and it is being eroded daily. I value many things. I don't see them in my government or the controlling regime right now.

Jerry David, USA

Robert,
The defense department is not authorized, or was not authorized prior to 9/11, to use deadly force within the borders of the United States. That is why there were so few planes in the sky during that attack.
Inspite of the repeated terrorist attacks aimed at the US prior to Bush's presidency (ie. the clinton years) nothing was done to prevent such attacks. Bush has done a great job in preventing a repeat of terrorist attacks on American soil. If clinton had been more interested in defending our country than in his crotch we would not have had 9/11.
Bush said it well today... we are to take the attack to those who plot in secret against us. I love having f16s world wide and don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks about it.
There is only one way to win a war and that is to kill the enemy. During WWII we killed over 100,000 German civilians in a single air raid on the Dresden military complex. There was no out cry and the Germans promptly surrendered some six months later.
The problem with the world today is that liberals are tying the hands of our government to kill the people who specifically target civilians, not as collateral damage, but as targets. Israel is Americas only ally in the middle east, excepting perhaps for Afghanistan (newly liberated by American firepower) and soon to be democratic Iraq. The only problem with the US foreign policy is the shackles that liberals put on it, otherwhise we would, worldwide, by freedom loving prosporous individuals.
Long live capitalism! It promotes freedom! Long live freedom for all, and that includes freedom for women in muslim countries, for Israelis to live in peace, and the removal of military and monarchical dictatorships of every non-liberated arab country.
Why should we care what the UN thinks? Less than a third of the member nations are democracies, and half would as soon see freedom as a historical anomally than a practicing political process.

Margaret Kearney, Australia

I am from Australia and the issues raised are just as relevant in Australia as the debate about differences of values between the US and Europe. To many the issues include 1. extreme isolationism/unilaterism which translates as one rule for the US - and above the law- as against the rest of the world.The attacks by the current Bush govt on the UN and other multi lateral treaties and institutions is alarming. The contempt for such universal rules of law as the Geneva Convention makes it less safe for US and other allied troops as well as the long suffering people in countries such as Iraq. This attitude is a recruiment poster for terrorists. And military action which makes the world less safe for everyone.2.Central to the debate is how countries and their people perceive the world and conduct themselves. To many US govt policy and actions (Rep and Dem) are a rejection of what we have all learnt from the 19 and 20 century. Respect for international law,standards and human rights, rights of the citizen and community as against the corporation and business, public services for citizens, dealing with corruption and other issues which undermine govt as representing the citizens/community and an end of empire.3.The US acts like an Empire which undermines if not destroys its claim as a Republican democracy.US attitudes would take us all back 200 years-slave trade was cheap labor like sending jobs overseas is today - to a time of limited rights for the people against that of business or aristocracy and limited international regulation/laws that would protect people and the weaker/ smaller countries against the aggresive ones.4. The US refuses to listen to anyone else and gets itself and the rest of us in a mess.Its previous support for Saddam,involvement with Afghanistan in the 80's are examples.France told the US to leave Vietnam in the 50's. The US fails to learn from past conduct.5. The US entered both World Wars late, other countries also fought but the language from Washington is one of insulting the rest of the world & refusing to acknowledge the real history.

Irene Adler, USA

Bill Irving, U.K.
I think that Susan of Tennessee's contribution highlights the main difference between American and European values. Like her, many Americans take great pride in their short vacations, long working hours, and capacity to "get by" on less than living wages. In contrast, industrialists and financiers constantly complain about the financial and working concessions forced from them by their European workforces.
Might the value Americans attach to deference and obedience be a legacy of their slave economy? Why are Europeans too proud to make good servants?"
What an ignorat piece of crap. "The slave economy" was confined to the South and was obliterated by forceful action circa 1865. The rest of the US states either abolished slavery very early (the New England states abolished it in 1777) or never had it in the first place (All Western states except Texas, and all Mid-Western states too.)
We work hard because we value self-reliance. We think depending on the government teat is a form of slavery. When the welfare state fails, you Europeans will be in a heap of trouble. You won't know how to fend for yourselves because it's been bred out of you
America's more modest welfare state also has severe financial problems, but when it fails, we'll just pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start all over again. We still remember how to fend for ourselves; we still have initiative and "can-do" spirit.
Funny, you call us "slaves" but you see nothing wrong with people who are "too proud" to work but not "too proud" to stick out their hands for government hand-outs. There's pride and then there's **real** pride. Maids and waitresses who work for minimum wage have real pride and dignity; slackers who sit in cafes sipping lattes while collecting the government dole have zero pride and zero self-respect.

Margaret Kearney, Australia

I have been reading the diverse range of comments from both Americans and Europeans and would like to make my own contribution. The issue is not just about values and differences between the US and Europe, but rather US vs the rest of the world.
I consider that the US is rejecting the last 200 years of social/political development and the lessons learnt from the 20th century about war, racism, economic crisis/poverty and the obsession for an Empire.Christian L., from London was correct in saying that this is a rejection of the Enlightment -against reason and science and a separation of church and state. As he said it is becoming an oppressive theocracy.Christian fundamnetalists have taken over the political structures,whilst a lot of the media acts like Pravda. Whilst it refuses to stand by international laws and institutions it wants the rest of us to do what it wants-authoritarian dictatorship- we do not get to vote-. Paul Zoros was correct that the US has become a place of social darwinism with its survival of the fittest attitude and limited social services. Its lack of a universal medical health care program is a disgrace. A democracy must focus on its citizens and ensure that it is attempting to include them within the broader society this includes the provision of community/public services .I consider that the US fails to do this. I consider that this one of many reasons why there is such a divide between the US and the rest. Stephen Moore from Seattle suggests that the hard line right wing republicans have created a new religion based on Darwinist survival of the fittest and a grab for military solutions and domination of the world.He is spot on as are his claims that it un christian-glorification of war and military options and aggressive domination of others and the weak, adoration of greed and money , contempt for the less fortunate, celebration of the money lenders/corporation as against the citizen are all part of it.
Most Americans have no idea of the impact -too often negative- of the US around the world, poor quality education and media services all ensure most are ignorant of the most basic understanding or ideas about the rest of the world. In brief too often it has been a rejection of what it supposedly stands for- i.e anti- democratic, pro the developemt of an empire, anti the citizen and workers rights, pro some dictator if they support the US, anti dissent or free speech or difference of opinion, pro the coporation and big business at the expence of the citizen and community, anti the international rule of law and institutions on issues such as human rights and land mines and war crimes court but pro free trade agreements and support for corporations.
For many people around the world we view with alarm the path that the US is taking. It is a profound rejection of what has been achieved over the last 2 centuries- democratic principles and rights, the role of the citizen ( as against even an indidvidual), rule of international law and institutions,limits to war and military options, regulation of the corporate sector to control its behaviour and separation of church and state.
It also includes the development of public services for the citizen/ members of the community such as health and education.The American politicans have failed or refused to provide these essential services in a way that is accessible and affordable and good quality to its people.For at least the last 30 years in the US public services and infrastrucute in cities and urban areas have been undermined and lost funding or support. That says everything about what the politicans think of its citizens. However these economic fundamentalists and dinasors want to inflict these failed ideas on the rest of us - that is privatise everything, reduce services for the poor and disadvantaged, reduce services for everyone, and blame the community if things go wrong or they are in economic decline.That many Americans including some who have been invovled with this discussion think that this means some 'bad welfare state' show that they have been brainwashed. Companies such as Halliburton are on a direct line drip feed to your tax dollars in Washington- a big welfare program - that does not help the average American.

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Debate - Page 2/13