Who are We?

Has anyone read Samuel P. Huntington's latest, "Who are We?" If so, what do you think? Do you agree or disagree with his views? Do you think his views are supported by the Administration? It's a provacative read and I think a good topic for discussion.

If you are not familiar with this book, here's the extract from the cover:

"In his seminal work "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order," Samuel Huntington argued provocatively and presciently that with the end of the cold war, 'civilizations' were replacing ideologies as the new fault lines in international politics.

His astute analysis has proven correct. Now Professor Huntington turns his attention from international affairs to our domestic cultural rifts as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.

America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the US gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Prostetant culture. More recently, however, national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants, bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the "denationalization" of American elites.

11 September brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity. But already there are signs that this revival is fading, even though in the post-11 September world, Americans face unprecedented challenges to our security.

Who are We? shows the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Nothing less than our national identity is at stake."

 

Not having read this book and only judging from your write-up, I would say that I would most likely disagree with his views. The book appears to be focusing on the religious "values" that are hyped all over the place now, even going so far as to claim that these values go all the way back to the settlers. This is of course incorrect, one of the reasons the settlers came here in the first place is to have freedom of religion, and to not be prosecuted for having the "wrong" religion anymore. Freedom of religion also includes not participating in any organized religion if one chooses to, and to have values that can pertain to all people without forcing them to adhere to any religion.

Marianne

 

it seems that people keep forgetting that the settlers did in fact have strong religious beliefs, as made clear by Thanksgiving records all the way up to the Declaration of Independence.

this country was founded on freedom OF religion, but too many people today seem to think that freedom FROM religion is more important. those same people who are screaming against public practice of religion are turning around and yelling for free speech to those who would publicly denounce religion.

it's no use in arguing with such people as the hypocrisy is evident from the start of their arguments.

 

I have a right to practice whatever religion I choose, but I should also have a right not to have your religion preached at me or forced upon me. The problem lies with govenrment officials using their chosen religion as a basis to push for laws against things their religion says is 'wrong'. Once a bill/law gets passed involving something religion-based, it's at that point someone else's religious choices have infringed upon my rights.

Religious beliefs are a private thing, and everyone has the ability to practice whatever they want in private or in your church/mosque/synagouge, but when it gets out into the public with marches, demonstrations, parades, etc, then it invades others rights.

It comes down to advertising for your religion of choice. If you have a good thing going, then people will show up at your place of worship without all the public sh1t stirring trying to convince people their way is wrong and yours is right...a good product sells itself.

 

Obviously, it is a fact that our country was founded by people with strong religious beliefs. Our country has developed tremendously since we were founded and we even made mistakes over the years.

I don't think religion was the main point of Carol's topic post. I think a better discussion is what makes us Americans? What does our national identity encapsulate or what should it encapsulate?

 

Yippee! We are starting our discussion! <g> In my opinion, what Huntington is trying to convey is that due to the massive influx of immigrants the national identify of Americans as well as values are becoming submerged and as a result, making America perhaps weaker rather than stronger. His book seems to specifically attack Hispanics yet he does not seem to back up his points with specific facts. However on the other hand, I was curious enough to do some web research on this author and I learned that he is presently teaching a class at Harvard on "Religion in Global Politics." Also interestingly, back in the late 1970's he was the former coordinator of security planning for the NSC.

I think his views are certainly good for some discussion particular on what is the national identity of Americans and after identification of America's core values (or what they should be) are they changing due to the influx of immigrants and differing cultures and if so, which ones, why.

 

The national identity erodes when we as a people embrace the hyphenated american instead of treating everyone equally. This problem is compounded when our society is changed from a democracy where the majority rules, to what we have now where the special interest group rules. This is evident now when the atheists try to strip religion from every corner of society.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That doesn't say anything about seperation of church and state but so many like to interpret it that way. What it does say is things like laws passed by congress granting tax exemption for churches are unconstitional.

The notion that religious beliefs are a private matter just doesn't wash. For centuries, societies most basic laws have been based on religious beliefs. Does this mean that we stone adulterers, of course not but it does mean we shouldn't kill each other either.

 

I'll actually agree with you here...there is no such thing as an African-American or an Asian-American, etc. If you're a citizen...you're an American...no need to segregate yourself by assigning yourself some cross-ethnic hyphenated moniker.

The first ammendment, by wording alone even though it doesn't have the exact phrase, separate church and state? Congress, being the law making body of the USA, shall not make any laws regarding religion. Too bad it doesn't say Presidents can't bring religion into their policies.

Thats because the bible/quaran/etc all have pretty good common sense ideals in them that are clearly spelled out and well suited to base laws upon (no killing, stealing, etc)...but the bible, for example, also has some pretty crazy stuff in there (as 'Dang' pointed out). Just because 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is a good idea doesn't mean interpeting the bible to support a 'no gay marriage' law is too.

 

Again, I do not come across that Huntington's point in his book is an emphasis on religion per se but on immigrants and their cultures. But Mearan, are you suggesting that it would be better to further incorporate religion and religious tolerance more so into politics?

I think it would perhaps be helpful to get views of what is the national identity and core values of America before dwelving into other discussions.

 

Brim
It's the establishment of religion the Constitution forbids. I personally am not religious yet agree with the President on the matters of gay marriage and abortion, as does the majority of Americans. For me, it is a matter of tradition and culture. It seems to me by your post you think religious people don't deserve the 1st amendment protections of our Constitution with regard to free speech and assembly.

lyo

 

I guess I would disagree with your assertion that "the majority of Americans" agree with the President's stance on abortion. Here's a timely excerpt from cnn.com:

If you assume that Bush is against abortion (pretty safe assumption), and agree that Roe v. Wade legalized early-term abortions, you really cannot say that the majority of Americans agree with the President on this matter.

 

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982 You really think most Americans are "for" abortion?

New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life
Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." In December, pollster John Zogby teamed up with Brad O'Leary of the O'Leary Report to examine the cultural differences in states that elected George W. Bush as president in 2000 and those that voted for Al Gore. The poll also contained questions relating to abortion.

As previous polls have shown, a strong majority of Republicans take a pro-life position, but so do a sizable number of Democrats.

Some 68 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement that abortion "destroys a human life and is manslaughter" while 43 percent of Democrats in the U.S. also agreed.

The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support "restrictions on abortion" compared to five or ten years ago.

According to the poll, 22 percent of Americans were more interested in abortion restrictions, while only 11 percent were less interested.

Sixty-six percent said their views on abortion restrictions were the same as they were five or ten years ago. Since polls have consistently shown considerable support for laws such as parental notification, informed consent, and unborn victims legislation, the Zogby poll confirms Americans are moving in the direction of ensuring that sensible limits are placed on legalized abortion.

Other recent polls also confirm a majority of Americans have a pro-life perspective.

An October 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, found a majority of Americans and Catholics believe abortion is "morally unacceptable."

Some 58 percent of all respondents said they thought "abortion, when the mother's life is not in danger" was morally unacceptable. About 66 percent of Catholics agreed.

Only 39 percent of Americans and 30 percent of Catholics found abortion morally acceptable.



As far as law is concerned Roe v wade was a bad decision just on legal ground alone. It should be a State issue not a federal one.


lyo

 

You're misreading my post. I didn't say "most Americans are 'for' abortion." I simply quoted a survey in which Americans, by a 2-1 margin (59% to 31%), would favor choosing a Supreme Court nominee who would uphold Roe v. Wade, which held that abortion should be legal in at least some cases. Do you seriously think that GWB falls into this 59% category? He would have to, in order for your original post to be accurate. My guess is that he would fall into the 31% category.

Your own post supports the survey results I cited:

And if you want to throw out Roe v. Wade as a "bad decision," don't forget that in Planned Parenthood v. Casey</u> the Supreme Court endorsed the essential holding of Roe. You may not like it, but Roe is the law, and a majority of Americans would seem to want it to stay that way.

 

What Roe does is take the issue of abortion out of the hands of the people and legislatures in all 50 states.




lyo

 

Interesting he is attacking immigrants when we are a nation of immigrants. Interesting when he is attacking Hispanics when, quite frankly, this country would grind to a halt without them (figuratively speaking). They are truly the new working class, doing the work that us "long time" Americans no longer want to do.

 

Issues are taken out of the hands of the people and legislatures in all 50 states all the time. Remember Bush v. Gore? That was a doosie. I happened to vote for Bush that year, and was happy with the result of the election, but the Supreme Court clearly overstepped its bounds and took the issue out of the hands of the Florida legislature and courts.

But, we digress. My original post was not meant to start an off-topic legal discussion about Federalism. I just pointed out an inaccuracy in your original post -- one that you refuse to accept.

 

Bush v Gore did exactly the opposite. It put the issue back into the state legislature which is what the constitution calls for. The Florida SC disregarded the constitutional power given to the state legislature to designate a date to certify the vote.What the USSC did was uphold that date and require and standard in which to count the votes.

lyo

 

Keep ignoring my original point...

 

If your original point was to challange my assertion that the majority of Americans agree with the President on the matter of abortion you could be right if i was refering to Roe, but I wasn't. I was refering to the belief that abortion on demand is morally wrong and Americans want more restrictions placed on abortion, for example, the ban on late term abortions.

lyo