From this week's Savage Love:



[ May 21, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

No comments from MiniMattttttt yet?

Don't forget about atheists, progressives, academics, and scientists. The American Taliban's efforts to silence and intimidate these groups are becoming more and more successful every day. Witness the current evolution debate in Kansas.

So their solution to promiscuity is to prevent people from being treated for venereal disease?

Why not just drop all of modern medicine? Then we would have no more disease because people would stop doing the things that cause it like breathing poluted air, drinking poluted water (if they have water), driving cars, typing at computers (CTS), eating at McDonalds, etc.

Here we go, back to the Dark Ages and maybe past.

He can't type right now, he's too busy applauding his fellow Comrades' efforts to destroy the country one person at a time.

I thought it was generally accepted by most Christians that evolution occurred, but in the beginning, it was God who created the first life form.

Then again, I also thought most Christians realized that the Old Testament is a collection of stories, not necessarily the truth, and that the New Testament says we must love our neighbor, whether she/he be a gay person, a scientist, an atheist, or whatever.

Ohhh yeah, by the way, I see right through your little ploy- the Focus on the Family website (or Tradition Values Coalition...one of them...) told me "progressive" is a liberal code word for "socialist."

This is an exact repetition of what their forerunners said half a century ago when penicillin was successfully used to treat syphilis. If syphilis is curable then people will no longer fear to engage in sex.

This crap does make clear where their opposition to abortion comes from. Not some "reverence for life"; it's clear their "reverence for life" only applies to fetuses, stem cells and white women in persistent vegetative states. But when it comes down to it, when you hear them picketing outside the clinics, they don't say "a fertiilized egg is a baby!". They say "slut, why didn't you keep your legs crossed?" Sex is a sin, at least for women (and gays of course) and women must be punished. Some of them say that the problem is that there is no longer enough of a stigma attached to out-of-wedlock pregnancies. If women were more ashamed they'd not have sex. (Bullshit, they'd just be hidden away.) If we have effective sex education, contraception, abortion, treatment/prevention for disease, prenatal care and childcare then where's the punishment for sex?

I have never understood the Puritan streak that runs through American public life. Canada has basically the same heritage, especially from the United Empire Loyalists that came north after your revolution, yet we seemed to have checked the puritanism at the border.People always say how alike out 2 countries are, and in many ways that is the case, but I believe our social views are very different. We are considered one of the worlds most liberal nations, whereas America still struggles with issues such as sex education , abortion and minority rights. I wonder what caused 2 bordering countries with so much in common, including the worlds largest trading relationship, to develop so differently?

The Christian Fundamentalists and Moral Majority hijacked our country and not yours?

That's not really enough of an answer to a very good question. The puritanical influence in America goes back to the original British colonists that wound up in both areas. However, the revival movement never took hold in Canada, while it has gone through waves of almost hysterical support in the US. Even Methodism (which used to occupy the niche Baptism now occupy in this country) didn't flourish in its native England but took root like a weed in the colonies and then the states.

I don't know what the answer is, but there has probably been a book or two on the subject, and if there hasn't, there certainly should be.

Havent found anything that explains the differences between the countries but I agree it is worthy of a book. Maybe some Outsport Academic would like to take on the topic. I would have expected the loyalists who left after the American Revolution would have brought forth a more conservative nation but in fact its the opposite that happened. Maybe it is the influence of French Canada that saved us but even then the RC Church was extremely conservative and powerful until the 60's. I just thank God Pierre Trudeau said in 1968 that the 'government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and Canadians have pretty much been in agreement since then.

Jqueer's on the right track. (I haven't studied early American history since college, but I think what follows is about right.)

In Massachusetts, which was the seat of the Puritans, a theocracy lasted for several generations (1620s-1680s). Dissenters were harshly punished or banished, leading in part to the founding of Rhode Island in 1631. In 1646, the year the Plymouth Synod convened, which codified Congregationalism, John Winthrop (Kerry's direct ancestor) banished a dissenter who appealed for equal treatment of other faiths, and a few years later, the Puritans drove Quakers out (who would settle in Rhode Island) or hanged those who wouldn't leave. (Pennsylvania, which took in many Quakers, wasn't founded until 1681.) It wasn't until the 1680s that non-church members were allowed to vote in Massachusetts; Governor Andros, who had been the British governor of New York, was appointed by Catholic-leaning King James II to consolidate all of the New England colonies, which he did, dissolving the individual governments of New York and Connecticut, and made Puritans and Anglicans worship together. When news reached the Puritans that Catholic-leaning James II had been overthrown, the Puritans rebelled and Andros had to flee to England, at which point the individual colonies again assumed their previous governments. Puritanism began to wane after this point (and Andros later became governor of Anglican Virginia), but as jqueer notes, the Great Awakening was in full swing by the 1730s, which led to waves of revivalism of Protestant Christianity in large swathes of the population, beginning in New England.

In terms of the other states, Connecticut and New Hampshire had milder forms of Congregationalism; Rhode Island welcomed dissenters from the beginning; Pennsylvania also welcomed a wide array of religious believers, especially Quakers and various Scots-Irish Protestants in the early 1700s; New York was originally a Dutch colony and commercially focused after about 1660 or so, welcoming people of various faiths (including Jews) in the 1650s; New Jersey was a Dutch commercial settlement that also included Swedish (and thus Protestant Reform) settlements; Delaware was initially a Dutch-Swedish settlement; Maryland was distinguished by its strong Catholic imprint, from the granting of its patent to Lord Baltimore, though Puritans rioted in the late 1650s; Virginia was predominantly Anglican; North Carolina was settled by Anglicans and various Protestants from other parts of Europe (Switzerland, etc.); South Carolina by Huguenots (French Protestants), Anglicans and Protestant dissenters; and Georgia by debtors (it was a bit more freewheeling than the other three Southern colonies), the youngest of the four, and the least populated.

I should add that several Protestant sects (like the Baptists) split during the Civil War, with the most conservative, pro-slavery versions lying south of the Mason-Dixon line, naturally. This has also affected the conservatism of Southern Protestantism vs. northern Protestant churches, including the mainline churches. Also, the liberal Unitarian-Universalist faith, like the Reform churches, never took as strong a hold in the south as in the northeast and midwest. Boston is also the home of Christian Science.

Canada never had such a severe form of Christianity in place, nor the vast diversity of religions and practices, which is one reason that the US's Founding Fathers (several of whom rarely went to church at all, or were Deists, not Christians) sought (rightly) to separate the Church and State and protect religious freedom and practice, which had been severely punished not only in Europe (Catholics in England; Protestants in France; Jews in Spain and Portugal, etc.), but in the American colonies as well.

The earliest European Canadian settlers were French, and Quebec was sparsely populated for some time compared to the burgeoning English settlements south of the St. Lawrence River. This initially marked Canada's history as different; then in general Canada's early English settlers were drawn from the Anglican mainstream and milder dissenting sects (Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.); after the French-Indian war, Britain ended up with Newfoundland, Acadia and what's most of upper and eastern Canada. Then in 1763, Britain got all of France's territory east of the Mississippi, including Quebec. The French then claimed the huge area of land WEST of the Mississippi, which enraged the American colonial leaders. Had they defeated the French-British forces in 1775, the US and Canada very well might have become one country, but they failed, and the next year declared their independence from Britain, effectively creating not one, but two countries. The British loyalists fled north, and eventually the huge Quebec colony was divided into Upper Canada (Ontario, British-Protestant) and Lower Canada (Quebec, French-Catholic); Nova Scotia and New Brunswick also existed then too. The main religious struggle in Canada has been between the Protestants and Catholics, not just in Ontario-Quebec, but also in the west of the country. The secularization of Quebec, along with the moderating influence of the mainline Protestant churches in Canada, which predominate, are a central reason, along with the rising prosperity of Canadian society, why Canada's social outlook is more in line with Europe's and not the United States'.

Though the countries share many cultural and historical elements, their histories while intricately linked, are quite different in key respects.

[ May 23, 2005, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

they're going to hell anyways so what does it matter

Wow, this story has been running through the Democrat Party underground net re: the culture wars for a bit.

Simple to say: Maher's all wrong. Vaccine good. Needed for here and in the developing countries.

I hope when it's ready, parents will drop the "My kid doesn't have sex" line and let em get vaccinated.

Should the individual states mandate vaccination for HPV? Might be a worthwhile intrusion into the conduct of citizens.

Thanks Fantomas for your insight.

Interesting issue raised by Swiminbuff and comments by Fantomas, as well as others. Another question is why, if Puritanism began in Massachusetts and the more secular Anglican colonists began at Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia, why now is Massachusetts one of the most liberal secular states and Virginia very conservative, the home to some of the most right-wing religious zealots like Falwell and Robertson?

Bballrob, I think it has a great deal, but not everything of course, to do with slavery, and its conservative social and political effects. Though Massachusetts was the first state to legalize slavery (in 1642, I think), slavery was on the wane by the 1780s in the New England states and Pennsylvania, and eliminated by statue in all of the northeast by the 1820s. New York had the most slaves numerically; I believe Connecticut (yes!) had the most proportionally on the eve of the American Revolution. (Vermont was the first to outlaw slavery officially in its 1777 Constitution; New Jersey and New Hampshire were the last, in 1846 and 1857 respectively, though New Hampshire had as few as 8 slaves in 1800, and had among the least restrictive laws against free black citizens!) The truth is, though, that slavery of various sorts persisted in many of these states, a number actively tried to expel or bar black immigration, and the Fugitive Slave Law left black residents vulnerable, though it was most fiercely opposed in--guess where--Massachusetts (cf. below).

An additional issue with Massachusetts is the influence of Boston itself, which was the cradle of liberty, and later Command Central for abolitionism. Moreover, Massachusetts was the first state to become heavily industrialized, and also the effects of post-Enlightenment rationalism, along with Romanticism, strongly took root in such movements as Transcendentalism, and in such important figures as Emerson, Thoreau, Peirce, James, Holmes, Longfellow, Royce, Eddy, etc. The diminishing influence of religion in favor of scientific rationalism and science was strong in Massachusetts in particular by the time of Lincoln's election. Louis Menand's Pulitzer Prize-winning study The Metaphysical Club provides an excellent overview.

The former Confederate states (all 11 of them), like the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware [which had the largest proportional free black population of any state by 1860], and the District of Columbia), all had slaves until the end of the Civil War (the Emancipation Proclamation notwithstanding). The social and political conservatism of most of these states has persisted into the 21st century. Also, historically although South Carolina and Virginia were fairly rich, the majority of the Southern white population was poorer than its peers in the north and wielded less political power, both of which have had a subsequent social and political impact. (Trade unions were traditionally the weakest in the south, and far stronger in the Midwest and Northeast). Another issue is that while some regions, especially the Northeast, Midwest, and southern California, received sizable numbers of political liberals fleeing Europe (Germans fleeing the revolution of 1848, many Jewish progressive figures after 1933, etc.), and comparatively more foreign immigrants in general (especially from Ireland, Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe) etc., the South (with Texas, Florida and Louisiana the main exceptions) received comparatively far fewer foreign immigrants for quite a while, though the situation has definitely changed in the last 30 years.

Of course there are many other historical issues to consider, from immigration to patterns of industrialization to labor activism, to more recent political and social shifts, and so on, and some states don't fit into the schema (Indiana). But slavery definitely left its imprint, not just on black people, but on our entire political system, which is why our failure to discuss as a nation is so problematic.

[ May 25, 2005, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fantomas:

Thanks for explaining it. It was a fascinating read. My descendants are UEL, (United Empire Loyalist) who immigrated from Scotland to Long Island and Manhattan in 1745, and then came to Canada in 1790. In fact, 3 of the 4 original land grant farms are still in the family. And of course the line of the family that I am descended from started with a person named "Crazy Jack", who was kicked out of Scotland. It was either emmigrate or be killed.
My grandparents were the last of the family to stay with the old Scottish Methodist church up here. Sometime in the past 75 years, it merged with another church (presbyterian I think) and became the United Church of Canada. Free Methodist and Free Presbyterian went their own way, and still exist today.

One thing that people in the United States seem to not realize, is that Canada has very much the mouse vs the elephant complex, either with Great Britain until the end of WW1, or after that, the United States. That, combined with the impact of French Canada has tempered the way we look at things, and the way that Canada has grown socially, culturally and politically. French Canada is much more than Quebec. While the majority if French Canadians do live in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Manitoba all have large francophone populations that do not identify with Quebec.

[ May 25, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Lksimcoe ]

Interesting discussion. My take on the reason for the difference between US culture and others is fairly simple, and perhaps dead wrong for that reason: Greed. We were blessed early with great natural resources on the verge of two technological evolutions that allowed exploitation of that wealth: shipping that allowed slavery, then the industrial revolution, which ironically made slavery more necessary before replacing it. Religion, which has been a favorite tool of all merchants, is just one tool.

This thread is proof that History majors in college have actually found a way to make use of their degree since they cant most places

That was a great history fatasma but I have to point out a few things. First English Canada and NE still show their puritanical roots. The south is not so puritanical in the religious sense. We use the word puritanical loosely these days to refer to sexual attitudes. But the laws in NE and English Canada still have many puritanical influence that permeates the culture. Both areas are today more easy going about sex and nudity but there is still a strong stoic tradition that makes sure bars don’t stay open too late, don’t allow alcohol to be purchased on Sunday ect… When I first went to Toronto the gay bars were not allowed to show gay porn videos, so they showed lots of sexy photos but no full frontal nudity and the bars all closed at 1 a.m. Around the same time you could stay out until 3 or 4 in Montreal and watch gogo boys dance while flashing their hard-ons. The cultural change that one feels moving from NE or English Canada to Quebec is more than just parlez-vous français.

What we have going on with the southern Baptist is a path that did not begin with puritans, although we refer to them as puritanical. You hit the nail on the head fatasma when you brought up slavery. Puritans, Unitarians and Quakers were all united against slavery. Thoreau’s essay in Civil Disobedience about Reverend John Brown drives home this point. Thoreau a unitarian, asked how can men of faith, he asked, sit back and allow the injustice of slavery to persist. He devoted another essay to the outrage he felt about the fugitive slave law. Today, the religious right thinks of Unitarians as a gay church.

So the puritans may seem terrifying because of their prudish sexual attitudes and their witch trial, but they were “pure” about certain humane principles. The political southern Baptist movement is quite recent. Remember some of our more liberal presidents, Carter, and Clinton were both southern Baptists. At some point I believe it was in the 80s but I could be wrong, there was a split in the Baptist church that created the fanatical religious right that we see today. Perhaps a southern Baptist could enlighten us more on this, I’m going off what I remembered from a PBS documentary. There they had many liberal Baptists from the south speak of how the church was hijacked when the “southern Baptist” took over.

In the end, it has nothing to do with religion but education. I believe Canada’s public school system is among the top 5 world wide while I believe we are somewhere in the high teens or close to 20. The best public schools in this country are found where? Where the money is. We pay for our schools through property taxes so high property taxes mean better schools. This creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor in terms of educational opportunities. Keeping the populous barefoot, ignorant, and pregnant is a good way to keep them voting against their own interests. So the story is more “what ever happened to Kansas” then it is “what ever happened to the puritans”.

It doesn’t surprise me they wouldn’t want a vaccine. They had the same attitude about condom distribution. I think the religious right should adopt a new motto. Virginity or Death!!!

Oh by the way, I was a math major in college, but I did stay at a holiday in express last night.

[ May 25, 2005, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Thom ]

Interesting stuff on how how 2 neighbouring countries developed such different social views. Unfortunately there has been some seepage from south of the border when it comes to gay marriage debate. Recent nomination battles within the Conservative Party have been won by organized Christian fundamentalist groups opposed to gay marriage. It is widely believed that these groups have received funding from south of the border. On the upside , it is precisely these social - conservative views which have seen the Conservatives drop 11% in the polls in recent weeks, trailing the governing Liberals. It had looked to be almost a given that they would defeat the Liberal gov't in a non-confidence vote and force an election. They lost that battle, and it now looks as if Canadians thought about what a Conservative government might be like and for the moment at least are saying "no thank you".

You would probably find the commentary "Does Science Trump All" by Henry Fountain (apparently the editor of their hightech incert "Circuits") in Today's NYT interesting. He gives good examples of how science has been used for ill,though I would characterize the examples as either bad science or proof that scientist can be as insensitive as any individual can.

Close, Thom. The takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention was in 1979. [By that time, I had been gone from there for almost a decade.] If I remember correctly, Carter had a lot to do with precipitating the split... at least in the sense that the radicals were vociferously opposed to many of his social policies. The infamous 1976 Playboy interview didn't help, either. The generation since has seen the SBC Taliban tighten its grip around the neck of the convention, in the process driving away many who did not agree with them and would not "sit down and shut up".