Societies, Ideologies and Religion in America (the continent)

In another thread, people expressed the expectation that the USA accepting willing new States would mean problems with regards to extreme religiosity and social and political conservatism. Others have pointed out that things did not really work that way, but since it was off-topic but I want to hear more about it, I opened this thread.

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

Whoever thinks South Americans are more fundie than people in the good ol' US of A is grossly underestimating US-based fundies.

edited 26th Sep '11 12:08:25 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I think they're thinking "on average". And then again, I think thinking in terms of average in America means missing out on a huge variablity...

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

Some countries are quite fundie (say, Nicaragua). Others are not fundie at all, like Uruguay.

I doubt the average Latin American is more socially conservative than the average Middle American: Latinos in the US are a Democrat voting block, after all, and IIRC they don't typically support Blue Dog democrats.

Mexico might be more conservative, but the comparison is typically misleading, since the ruling PAN government is there due to right-wing electoral fraud. Colombia is right-wing. The rest of Latin America? I'm not sure.

edited 26th Sep '11 1:15:42 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

"Fundie" is not a term one bandies about in political discourse expecting to be taken seriously.

And I'd say the title should be changed to Societies, Ideologies and Religion in North America, since it clears things up.

And now I'll go to sleep.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Er, no, I meant North, Central AND South AND Caribbean. That's why I said "America (the continent)". You're not asking me to clarify, but to narrow, and I want to keep this exactly this broad.

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

How about America (the continentS?

For the purpose of this thread, America is the entirety of the New World. You may call it New World if you want.

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

Many islands in the Caribbean sea are either fundamentalist christian or insane commie. You just can't win there.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Propaganda. Have you ever been to Haïti? Heard of Vaudou religion?

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

What would we be admitting as new states to the US to cause this problem? Aside from Canada, I mean. The only other place that's eligible is Puerto Rico, and from what I understand, they don't want to join. Despite the (usually retarded) rhetoric about annexing Mexico, I don't think anyone on either side of the border wants that.

In any case, admitting another state would change the balance one way or another. I'm not sure that means everything will automatically swing towards conservatism, though - the definitions of conservative vary greatly between an American Republican and their counterpart in, say, Nicaragua.

edited 26th Sep '11 6:51:20 AM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Well, I was mostly imagining a Unified America, but, definitely, doing it case-by-case is far more practical: otherwise the mind simply emits a BSOD.

Anyway, it'd certainly mean a redistribution of riches throughout the region: this wouldn't be like the German unification, which was basically Easterx Germany being co-opted by the FDR. Mo, it's more like they write an entirely new Constitution to accomodate all states, one that is truly "minimal" and "unanymously agreed-upon". I think the UN's Universal Declaratioon of Human Rights, being the template for many, many modern constitutions, would be a nice place to strat from (then, well, whittle down the "rights" people aren't happy with).

Also the resulting union would have one single military, which would be far more economical that way, and the contient could easily become utterly impregnable.

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

As I said in the thread before, Catholicism is far more lax and easy going that protestanism. Thus, even despite religiosity, latin american countries are not at all socially conservatives.

Even Colombia and Chile which are amongst the few countries in the continet that have conservative goverments are very socially liberal in the sense that there is not nearly as much moral panic as in the US.

The US of A is surprisingly religious and conservative by industrialized nation standards and even by continental standars.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Some Latin American countries are actually worse about social conservatism than the US is, others aren't, but are in the hole for other reasons (many of them are on the poorer side). I'm not altogether sure of what the purpose of this thread is, are you advocating a unified North & South American state, or simply discussing the possibility?

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine

Some countries (say, Nicaragua or Chile) are worse about homophobia and social conservatism, most are comparable, and others are more liberal. Overall, they're comparable if not less religious.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Well I mean, you might say they're more conservative but take this one issue for example: death penalty. The only country that still vehemently believes in it is USA in all of the Americas. The rest are either phasing it out, or it's gone already.

Then, Canada is the only one with gay marriage. Hurr! Here come the Godly fireballs!

edited 26th Sep '11 8:43:25 AM by breadloaf

Mexico has had a bumper crop of executions the last few years.*

Personally, I don't think a government would work if it spanned two continents. The US government gets constantly shat on for incompetance and waste*

, and it less than half of North America by landmass? Increase that to include the entirety of both continents, and I think that the religious views of everyone included will be less important than the sudden, massive, required increase in government bureaucracy. Add on top of that the fact that you're suddenly mixing three different primary languages, that probably not enough people in government positions speak two, let alone all three.

Ooooh, and don't forget the various separatist groups in some of the South American countries. Imagine how much larger they'll grow, and how many more will pop up*

, if both continents were suddenly under a unified government.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I know plenty of coutries where everyone speaks three languages with ease. The solution to lack of language skills is the removal of isolation and insularism: when you mix with other people, you'll want to talk to them. The harder you want to talk, the quicker you'll learn how to.

And why would one government mean more bureaucracy? Isn't the whole point of mergers and acquisitions to decrease redundant personnel?

An action is not virtuous merely because it is unpleasant to do.

That only works if you're talking about business mergers, I think, Jesus. It's different when talking about merging countries and their governments. Hell, campaigning for president alone takes on a whole new scale when speaking of the whole continents.

(And, technically, I think all the US territories might be eligible for statehood, but Puerto Rico's the only one where it's come up. The ones to the west of us are probably more likely to be come "free states in association with the US". Although Guam has the option of joining as its own state or as part of Hawaii.)

Anyway... given that most everything south of us is Roman Catholic (Including Puerto Rico), I can imagine a lot of ridiculous complaints on the part of fundamentalist protestants about how we're being taken over. But by that time they truly would be outweighed by the Catholics and maybe the whole "religious fervor" would die down.

I don't think there's anything in our constitution that allows for the joining of a country that's not considered US territory, though, so the laws would have to be re-written. Or it would be considered a whole new 'nation' in the sense that it wouldn't be considered the current United States.

^ Hey, Canada has had that issue dealt with across 130 years of religious tolerance/tension.

Also Mexico abolished the death penalty, so I'm quite sure it'd be very impossible for them to have carried out any (legal) executions. Get your death penalty facts straight! (Or just show me a link to their executions for last year) :D

South America being Roman Catholic isn't a problem. Actually you know what, I'm starting to sense the trend is that all the problems and issues with this is from the United States. The USA is afraid of lots of Catholics. The USA wants death penalty. The USA doesn't want to learn more languages. The USA is afraid of poorer people flooding the country. But, I shall wait to be corrected on this.

As for bureaucracy, I'm quite sure that if America started adopting practices of other nations (and whatever America happens to be doing right, other countries adopt), the total bureaucracy would drop. You picture the campaigning bureaucracy to get worse because you're (rightly or wrongly) predicting that elections would be US-style. Why can't they be a different style? The total cost of an election in Canada for the entire legislature is 130 million dollars.

Yes, it's always the US's fault. Always. -_-

More seriously, I can assure you that most of the public just doesn't really care enough about any of these things. There's tons of people who don't like the death penalty, and it's not universal across the whole country; it's banned in thirteen states, and hasn't been used in years in a couple others. It's a slow process but it's going to get phased out eventually. As for the Roman Catholicism fear; that's fringe groups trying to stir up fears of 'culture wars'. Due to our constitutional right to say whatever we want, that means we also have to put up with fucking bigoted idiots. It also means those bigots are very, very loud. It's a trade off for our right to free speech. As for the poorer people flooding the country, that trades on our fear of American's jobs "being taken" without actually looking at facts. Most people don't do that, so politicians and other leaders will trade on the threat of us losing our financial security. It is also based in fact, as poor people will go where they perceive the wealth to be. (I in no way think this is any kind of invasion, these people are just going where they think the job opportunities are so they can live a better life, and send money back home. Anyone saying "invasion" is trading on fear and bigotry again.)

Regarding the languages; the public is as willing as any other country to learn another language. We really are. There was some survey whose link I didn't save that said American tourists were more likely than any other to try a new language. (And likely horribly butcher it, but it's the thought that counts.) But given that many of us can live our lives and never encounter a significant amount of foreign language speakers it's just not a requirement for us to live our daily lives like it is with other countries. The people who do end up dealing with international businesses or other international organizations do make an effort to learn or keep a translator with them. (In fact, businesses are more likely to hire you if you're fluent in another language.)

As for bureaucracy, I can only imagine it getting more unweildly the bigger the territory you have to administer to. I did not consider the style of government when saying what I said, only considered the sheer size of it. Though advances in technology and restructuring might take care of that.

Well I meant to say the thread's trend appears to be about how American won't accept this or that, which I don't think holds true.

For languages, I think it easy to spread languages but when I say easily, I don't mean quickly. We basically have to start with importing bilingual or trilingual people. Preferably we'll learn English/French/Spanish, with a phased 30-year plan. We do it with school language immersion (you are only allowed to speak the second language at school, thereby forcing you to learn it).

For death penalty, I'm sure America will radically shift toward no death penalty. None of us need to force it. South America's Roman Catholic beliefs preclude capital punishment while Canadian softer beliefs on crime punishment preclude death penalty. Eventually the United States is going to shift out of it, even though there's no real plan to do so.

For bureaucracy, it'll largely remain separate at first, but we'll eventually be shifting healthcare as the first thing to be normalised. It's going to get messier before it gets better. I think once we get over language issues and the like, bureaucratic integration will become easier. I'd integrate trade first (free trade across all the Americas), then business investment (free trade on investment in all industries), then labour (free labour movement) and then we move onto bureaucracy. First thing, socialised healthcare across all the Americas need to be normalised under one insurance plan, combined with medical school debt relief tied with where you are going to work in the Americas (so that more rural or out of reach locations can get doctors). Second thing would probably be the education system, integrating the language education, school language immersion, shared history courses. Then any number of things in-between (such as licence recognition, degree recognition, professional licence transferring etc, equalising supranational crime punishment), and lastly would be the political systems.

I would prefer a giant legislature of like I dunno 1000-2000 members of parliament/congress (call it whatever you like in each country). I think Canada is the only monarchy (not sure though, can someone confirm?), so we may just keep symbolic ties to that for shits and giggles. I prefer a parliamentary system, seats assigned to each country based on population (geographically split the Americas into sections of 150k to 300k (what's the population of the Americas?) people each, a representative per district or... vastly superior, a proportional representation vote) and then the largest party is headed by a Prime Minister. I would prefer each country handles its parties and votes, and then sends off the candidates into the super-parliament. For "national" level stuff, the sub-parliament of M Ps can handle those matters, for "supranational" concerns, the super-parliament deals with it headed by a coalition government.

Then very slowly, you get one government as technology improves and telecommunications becomes simpler.

edited 26th Sep '11 1:14:43 PM by breadloaf

As I understand it, Latin America trends liberal, fiscally, and conservative, socially. This may have changed since I last looked at it, though.

I am now known as Flyboy.

It's varied. A lot of them are mulling civil unions for instance, and even Mexico recognises gay marriage (and you can get gay marriage only in certain states but universally recognised). Argentina has gay marriage fully granted.

I think most are shifting socially liberal in fact. Death penalty is almost completely wiped out and those who still have it don't use it anymore.

If you wanted to say they're very religious, then yes, they're quite a bit higher on the religious scale than Canada but I'm not sure about the United States. Maybe the same? Except they're all Roman Catholics, so they follow the Pope's edicts whereas America is a bajillion protestant sects so their beliefs are anything under the sun. The RC religion has been getting pretty liberal of late (ever seen Quebec? :P)

I think crime/drugs are probably their bigger problems. I'm not sure what their punishment systems are like, but it seems like it's likely to be tougher than Canada. United States though is by a very large margin, the toughest on crime, doling out life sentences like candy... ignoring the executions. Colombia is fighting a literal war on drugs.

The separatist movements and various militia groups would make it hard for there to be total unification, unless we just opened the doors to them and gave them amnesty, they may or may not accept that. It'll at least solve a few and de-legitimise the others thus making it easier to wipe them out if they don't want to conclude their demands peacefully.

There's also native issues in every country. Go figure! But actually the South treats them way better than USA/Canada.

edited 26th Sep '11 9:40:29 PM by breadloaf

I'm not saying it works, but it is done in politics too. Merging USA and other countries would just be taking the examples in The Other Wiki a bit further.

Is there something against it? On not being considered USA anymore... Maybe we'd just make calling it "America" official?

@Languages: anybody know how much Central&South American politicans can speak English? Politicans are generally more educated. Plus it might come in handy in something like foreing politics.

Also Breadloaf though I wouldn't want to go through the language immersion.

edited 29th Sep '11 4:24:48 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.