Printable View
Huh? There's foundaments of atheism. You learn something new everyday.:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I would risk a no, not that I know a lot of USA, but I think that they've a system to oppose such a drastical and unfair change in the government. Now for what I see in the chart that Red posted, I think that they're fundamentalists, it could scare me if I lived in the USA, fortunetely I've more serious problems to worry about :laugh4: .Quote:
Do they have a chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
*sigh* 'tis just to express frustration at being unable to discuss these issues without being called an anti-American Satan worshipper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI
Creationism / Intelligent Design. Anti-gay, anti-abortion movements. The constant references to God / Jesus / teh Bible in politics and society. The -somewhat subjective - feeling that the influence of fundamentalist Christianity has been on a steady increase in the last 25 years in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Evidence I neither can nor want to provide. These things are difficult to grasp from abroad. I'm more hoping for opinions from the Americans here. Evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity puzzles the European mind. It is one of those things that are alien to mainstream west-European culture, like love for guns or the size buckets of popcorn at the cinema.
The neutering of CDC in its recommendations for disease prevention because they weren't abstinence only as per the fundamentalist line.
That NASA was told to toe the line with regards to political and creationist lines even if the science said opposite.Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.
A study by researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on declining birth and pregnancy rates among teenagers concludes that prevention programs should emphasize abstinence and contraception.
"Both are important," said Dr. John Santelli, the lead author of the study, which has not been published.
In Minnesota, a study found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program. The independent study, commissioned by the state's health department, recommended broadening the program to include more information about contraception.
Surely these count as clear examples of politcal influence of religious fundies.Quote:
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
...
Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.
Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.
"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."
"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."
The gay marriage ammendment could be considered such an attempt - but the evidence of increased political influence will be if it passes and becomes an ammendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
But then I also don't see it so much as a religious driven issue though.
I know lots of people who are against gay marriage for reason not based upon any religious standpoint.Quote:
I know that the Fundamentalist Jews and Muslim will agree on these points; however they are not the majority in the US.
not a problem - I used to think the secularists were attempting to destroy Christmas until I actually started looking into the facts.Quote:
So, it gives me the feeling that, yes, the Fundamentalist Christians are influencing the US politic.
The one attempt to force it into a school district meet with disaster when the people voted out the smucks that attempted it from their position on the school board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
abortion has always been a polarizing issue - so using it as an examble is not really valid in my opinion. For Instance I am against abortion but I support the right for the woman to decide what she wants in the first trimester of pregency. Then just from a consertive arguement - is why should my tax dollars be used to fix a mistake made by individuals. If people want to practice birth control via abortion they can also pay for it themselves. Not even a christian viewpoint.Quote:
Anti-gay, anti-abortion movements.
IN God we Trust has been on our treasury bills for years. Congress has always had an opening prayer, the National Prayer Breakfast has been ongoing for many years now. Religion is and will always be a subject of discussion in politics and society.Quote:
The constant references to God / Jesus / teh Bible in politics and society.
And this is a bad thing how?Quote:
The -somewhat subjective - feeling that the influence of fundamentalist Christianity has been on a steady increase in the last 25 years in America.
How does an increase in Christianity equate to an increase in Christian Fundmentalism.
And here you have hit the main point - the political and religious idenity of the United States is difficult for any outsider and many insiders to understand.Quote:
Evidence I neither can nor want to provide. These things are difficult to grasp from abroad. I'm more hoping for opinions from the Americans here. Evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity puzzles the European mind. It is one of those things that are alien to mainstream west-European culture, like love for guns or the size buckets of popcorn at the cinema.
So to advocate abstinence is a fundamentalists postion? I know several doctors who state abstinence is the only way to 100% guarntee no STD's and unwanted pregency - are they also fundamentalists for making that statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You might want to check into that story a little more. Its not so clear cut an examble as you think.Quote:
That NASA was told to toe the line with regards to political and creationist lines even if the science said opposite.
When studies show that giving a full spectrum of knowledge and solutions it protects more people then chosing another option because it is the religious one, I for one say that is caving into political pressure to fundamentalists.
As for NASA it has several political problems. Two of which are evident in that example. Climate change is more to do with the machinations of corporate lobby groups. While the other one is going out and having to specifically label every mention of the Big Bang as a theory without a similar note to do so on every other theory mentioned. I cannot see any corporate lobby group doing so, but it is certainly a common theme amongst creationists to screech "The big bang is only a theory" whilst not noting that that is what science is about, theories like Gravity, Electromagnetics, projectile motion etc
A scientific body is compromised when instead of using peer review it has political review to decide what is to be published and how it is to be published. When this political review is using creationist calibration it certainly falls under the title of religious political influence.
Essay on Christian Reconstructionists
Stuff on the real American Taliban, I think. Not that most Christians are Reconstructionists, I think/hope.Quote:
What is Reconstructionism?
Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.
And I still don't see the fundamentalism that many would claim from the practice of teaching abstinence to elemetary and junior high kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Thats not religious fundmentalism now is it?Quote:
As for NASA it has several political problems. Two of which are evident in that example. Climate change is more to do with the machinations of corporate lobby groups.
Again go back and research the story - that was over-ruled by the department head. It seems the little Public Affairs officer got to big for his pants. Again not a case of religious fundmentalism influencing actions in the government.Quote:
While the other one is going out and having to specifically label every mention of the Big Bang as a theory without a similar note to do so on every other theory mentioned.
You still haven't provided evidence of such.Quote:
I cannot see any corporate lobby group doing so, but it is certainly a common theme amongst creationists to screech "The big bang is only a theory" whilst not noting that that is what science is about, theories like Gravity, Electromagnetics, projectile motion etc
Again to bad the story was reported with a slant towarded a particuler view versus what the actual news is and was. It allows for misperceptions to exist.Quote:
A scientific body is compromised when instead of using peer review it has political review to decide what is to be published and how it is to be published. When this political review is using creationist calibration it certainly falls under the title of religious political influence.
From the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/sc...erland&emc=rssQuote:
Originally Posted by article
It seems the New York Times focused a lot of the article on the political influence of the Public Affairs office and the individual efforts of Mr. Deutsch who was told to resign.
In the article it also states that Mr. Deutsch believed that his job was to make the President look good. That doesn't sound like a religous fundmentalist postion on science now does it?
And from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021001766.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by article
Given that in the third paragraph the article quotes this lovely comparison
Quote:
Originally Posted by article once again
And the finally - and an editorial I agree with from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020801991.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by article
Reads more like blind support by young beuracrats attempting to make the President look good - and failing terriblily in their pathic attempts,
It also eads more like corporate influence on politics not religion when one goes beyond the surface and initial reports.
And I still don't see the fundamentalism that many would claim from the practice of teaching abstinence to elemetary and junior high kids.
True , the fundamentalism is from those that advocate that only abstinance should be taught .
Probably not. But the people that want to fund abstinence-only programs and refuse funding to programs that mention any other way of preventing pregnancy/STDs are certainly suspect. IIRC President Bush himself has problems with anti-AIDS programs that don't go straight for 100% abstinence. If that doesn't mean fundies have political influence I don't know what does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
these guys do not seem anywhere near as bad as the taliban but they are not keeping to scripture as well as they say, to understand the bible you have to interpret it and if they realy are just taking it as written then i personnally think that they are going wrong.
I think that their banning of alcohol is incorrect too, jesus drank alcohol heck he even turned some water into wine when they ran out now this does not mean that he was a drunkard by any strtch of the imagination. It says to me that they are not following a biblical or christian ideology as stingently as they say.
now as for their teaching of science im a bit worried that they are not being taught the other theorys as well as they will need them in the big bad world
to clarify things i have absolutely notheing against america
According to my frequently used encyclodictionalmanacapedia, 25% of the American population (I suppose it refers to the US) consider themselves as fundamentalists. One of the tenets of fundamentalism is as some of you already mentioned an infallible and literal Bible. There is however nothing worrisome about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
Christian fundamentalism did not exist prior to 1909 and it was a Christian protestant movement in opposition to modernism and secularisation of the mainstream Protestantism.
One should not confuse extremism with fundamentalism.
I have never heard of Christian Reconstructionists and thank you, discovery1 for the link.
I always thought that reconstructionism was a part of Judaism.
It seems these reconstructionists are bordering extremism.
There is already restorationists out there why not just join them?
You overstate your case redleg, when i vehemently hate something you'll know it. I vehemently disagree with this lot and what they are doing, but a supporter of free speech such as yourself will have no trouble with that.Quote:
So you disagree with their believes - does that make vehement hate an acceptable recourse when pointing out the wrongness of their teaching.
Its a stupid question because the answer is Duh, yes. They should indeed study non-christian writers. But if I had an english friend who wanted to study philosophy, and who asked "can an Englishman find truth in the writings of a Frenchman" I would consider myself in the company of a moron. Can a christian find truth in the writings of a non christian is similarly moronic.Quote:
And why would the question of "Can a christian find truth in writings of non-Christians?" be a stupid question to ask. Should they not study the writings of Mohummand to discover if their is truth in the writings? Should they not study Marx to see if their is truth in his writings?
I think its a valid postion to have - if they are asking it in an open minded way, if they are asking it as a closed minded rethoric question then its not a question at all.
If you are right that they pose this question rhetorically, before eagerly studying and findign the truth in non-christian writers, then i apologise to them.
Well, that's the main point answered, and hooray for it.Quote:
Since there are limited students and even more limited professors given the status of the recent walking of some of them - I don't fear a fundmental takeover of the United States by these Christians.
Yeees, we are running two different things together here. I expressly did NOT say they did not have the right of freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. But your freedom of speech does not mean I cannot be profoundly concerend by and opposed to what you say. Suppose a well funded college turned out graduates whose aim was to get into congress and impose sharia law on the states. Your comment on that would end at "well, they have freedom of speech" would it? or might you say "well, they have freedom of speech, but by god I hope they fail, and if they look like succeeding I will do all in my power, within the constitution, to oppose them?"Quote:
If I saw Islamists trying this in the United States without the advocation of violence I would support their right to express their inherient right as citizens of this nation to voice their political opinion. Until they voice the advocation of the violent overthrow of society or the established authority - they have the right to speak their mind and follow the idealogy that suits their individual belief.
Yes, a college must be committed to the mainstream academic values of free and liberal enquiry to be of no concern. It need not (indeed should not) teach only one "mainstream" viewpoint, although there does come a point where teachign anything else is simply a waste of time and I make no apology for saying that. Any chemisty teacher who taught about combustion as combination with oxygen, and then presented the phlogiston theory "for balance", is wasting everyone's time.Quote:
So the college must follow the mainstream in order to be of no concern. [sarcasm on] Now that is an enlightened postion.[/sarcasm off] It seems many liberials of old would disagree with you on that particuler point. Once upon a time it was mainstream academic opinion advocated bleeding people to cure them of sickness.
I don't think that is a difficult or controversial position. A spade is a spade because it has a handle and a blade for digging. If it does not have those features whatever it is, it is not a spade. A college is a college because is embodies mainstream academic values. If it does not have that feature, whatever it is, it is not a college.
Sure I did - if you have a problem with it - then maybe you shouldn't overstate your case. Refer to the topic's title if you will....Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The problem is that we don't know, and you assumed it to be a negative response versus a postive one. I am pointing out the rhetorically possible concerning the question.Quote:
Its a stupid question because the answer is Duh, yes. They should indeed study non-christian writers. But if I had an english friend who wanted to study philosophy, and who asked "can an Englishman find truth in the writings of a Frenchman" I would consider myself in the company of a moron. Can a christian find truth in the writings of a non christian is similarly moronic.
If you are right that they pose this question rhetorically, before eagerly studying and findign the truth in non-christian writers, then i apologise to them.
Then good - however the title of the thread would indicate something else.Quote:
Well, that's the main point answered, and hooray for it.
It would be the second - but I would not call them the American Taliban either. Some tend to overuse the word to create an emotional appeal - just like the term Nazi is often used.Quote:
Yeees, we are running two different things together here. I expressly did NOT say they did not have the right of freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. But your freedom of speech does not mean I cannot be profoundly concerend by and opposed to what you say. Suppose a well funded college turned out graduates whose aim was to get into congress and impose sharia law on the states. Your comment on that would end at "well, they have freedom of speech" would it? or might you say "well, they have freedom of speech, but by god I hope they fail, and if they look like succeeding I will do all in my power, within the constitution, to oppose them?"
It seems you have a problem with Christian based schooling. It is more mainstream then you realize. Have you bothered to research the number of schools in the United States that are private schools with a religious background?Quote:
Yes, a college must be committed to the mainstream academic values of free and liberal enquiry to be of no concern. It need not (indeed should not) teach only one "mainstream" viewpoint, although there does come a point where teachign anything else is simply a waste of time and I make no apology for saying that. Any chemisty teacher who taught about combustion as combination with oxygen, and then presented the phlogiston theory "for balance", is wasting everyone's time.
Quote:
I don't think that is a difficult or controversial position. A spade is a spade because it has a handle and a blade for digging. If it does not have those features whatever it is, it is not a spade. A college is a college because is embodies mainstream academic values. If it does not have that feature, whatever it is, it is not a college.
If it wasn't controversial - why did you get bring forward a discussion about a college that teaches religious doctrine in its liberial arts acedemic program?
So using the same standard here, I guess you would have a problem with trade schools that call themselves colleges also?
Again have you researched the number of colleges and universities that are private schools that have a religious agenda/background. This college is a private school - there is absolutely nothing wrong with it having such a program. If one wishes to go to a private school - then its their choice.
For it to be a religious fundmental postion it has to be based solely upon religion. For the influence to be of significant issue one has to be able to seperate religious organizations influence over the government from the power of the individual office holder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
What some are fogettting is the personal influence the President has in effecting the laws and legislation in the American Political Process - he has the power to either veto or approve any measure that goes through congress. What you are addressing here is the President's personal agenda for while he is in office.
Does that make for a fundmental religious influence in the government?
follow-up question.
Or does it make for a weak-willed congress that refuses to buck the President's personal agenda.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
“Refer to the topic's title if you will” It is a good title, right to makes me wanted to read what was in it…
But honestly, I always thought that the USA were based on Religions. What new here is an apparent willing to train people for power. But isn’t it the aim of the Opus Dei? Why all the congregations had and still have schools and universities? Jesuits, Dominicans are the best renown teachers, even invented some form of teaching (casuistic for example).
We could easily say these schools were and are the Madrasa of the Christian. In theses schools most of the modern Elite were trained.
But I am not too much worried. Most the great men went in Religious Schools, and sometimes the result was surprising.
It is perhaps NOT a good example, but Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, better known under the name of Stalin, went in Religious Scholl and was destined to be priest…
YOU’RE RIGHT!! STOP THEM IMMEDIATELY!!!! What on Earth the FBI is doing?
That's a common misconception. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were high on Enlightenment philosophy, not fundamentalist Christianity. You could make a much better argument that the U.S. was founded on Freemason principles of egalatarianism and rationality. It always honks me off when a theo-con tries to make Washinton, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. sound like a bunch of puritans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Sorry to go OT, but the whole "this is a Christian nation" canard has just enough of a grain of truth in it to be irritating. Yes, this was founded as a Christian nation, as much as it was founded as a caucasian nation, as much as it was founded as a male nation, as much as it was founded as a men-with-powdered-wigs-and-puffy-shirts nation.
As one of my favorite professors used to say, "True, but trivial."
And you have hit on why I have argued against the perception of a heavy fundmentalistic christian influence in the government. There is some lobby groups that are indeed based on that idealogue - but I count them as influencial as the green party in american politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If one was to claim that there is to much corporate influence on American Politics I would agree whole heartly - however the fundmentalist accusation doesn't hold much water when one really looks into some of the issues.
Accusations of the American Taliban are about as misused as Nazi comparsions when speaking about Political influence of the religious right.
I think it is obvious, and I think you know, that what I have a problem with qua schooling is people teaching as truth things that are not true, and people not supporting free enquiry into possibly productive perspectives on a problem. If you understand those to be the characteristics of christian based schooling, (and it is you who dragged that broad catagory into the debate,) then yes, I would have a problem with it. Relabelling ignorance and close mindedness as Christian education doesn't give it any kudos in my eyes. I'm surprised, as a christian yourself, that you would be happy with it. It seems rather insulting to your faith.Quote:
It seems you have a problem with Christian based schooling. It is more mainstream then you realize. Have you bothered to research the number of schools in the United States that are private schools with a religious background?
Contrast the Vatican's approach to, say, evolution or cosmology.
And as for the argument that there are a lot of private schools with a religious background, what is the point here? Are they all like PHC, both teaching ignorance and aiming for power? If so, the answer is, loony tunes don't get any less loony just because there are a lot of them. If they are not like PHC, if, say, they teach evolution and hope that their students get jobs as accountants, then they are irrelevant to the issue.
As for the reference to the Taliban, I thought and think it was entirely apt. PHC is a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book. The taliban (meaning "religious student") were a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book.
"Nazi" is indeed a grossly overused epithet, but you know what, that doesn't mean that sometimes there AREN'T real nazis. Likewise Taliban.
Why should I be insulted - if people wish to believe in something that does not cause any harm to anyone, then there is absolutely nothing that I have a reason to be upset about. The schools for the most part are private institutions so its not my money that is being wasted - only their time and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I am not catholic so I don't follow the vatican. So again why would I be upset about the Pope's postion on anything.Quote:
Contrast the Vatican's approach to, say, evolution or cosmology.
Nope most do have similiar education programs based upon religion however.Quote:
And as for the argument that there are a lot of private schools with a religious background, what is the point here? Are they all like PHC, both teaching ignorance and aiming for power? If so, the answer is, loony tunes don't get any less loony just because there are a lot of them. If they are not like PHC, if, say, they teach evolution and hope that their students get jobs as accountants, then they are irrelevant to the issue.
Still not even close - one group also believed in the repression of women within their own faith.Quote:
As for the reference to the Taliban, I thought and think it was entirely apt. PHC is a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book. The taliban (meaning "religious student") were a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book.
And in this case you still haven't shown where this group is a Taliban. I know of one group but this one is not even close.Quote:
"Nazi" is indeed a grossly overused epithet, but you know what, that doesn't mean that sometimes there AREN'T real nazis. Likewise Taliban.
Funny that. The documentary shows a round table discussion between the students, in which all the boys said that, well, sure, it was Ok for women to work for a bit, like if they aren't married, but "everyone knows" families are happier when wives don't work. The camera showed wonderful "dimly realising for the first time that maybe everything's not OK" looks appearing on the girls faces...Quote:
Still not even close - one group also believed in the repression of women within their own faith.
Anyway, obviously your definition of taliban is "a group of fundamentalist Islamists who took power in Afganistan in the late 1990s." I completely agree with you Red, these guys are not Taliban. You got me bro, I'm beat. The battlefield is yours. Bye.
You concentrated on the wrong group to call it the American Taliban. In other words you got the definition wrong again.
here focus on this instead
http://www.alternet.org/story/17637/
A website for the World Church of the CreatorQuote:
Originally Posted by article
http://www.churchofthecreator.org/sacredmandate.html
Army of God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God
(warning - the links in wikipedia takes you to graphic pictures on this organization website of abortion.)
Now if you called these two groups the American Taliban I would agree with you 100%. They believe in the violent oppression of those who do not believe as they do.
Let me see if I understand you Red. You say that the ones ruling and teaching at that school are not fundamentalists? Well, from wikipedia:
AndQuote:
In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.
How comes that the teachings are not foundamentalistic. Either it denies scientific truths making a literal interpretation of the "sacred texts" or it proposes a return to the fundamental principles of the said religion. If that's not fundamentalism then I don't know what it's. The Taliban was obviously used as a comparitive term to establish a similarity between this group of people and the islamic one, and the similarity exists. Now you might not be concerned about this, but that's what the original poster did, only expressed concern. If the there's a forum of teachings and enlightment such as this, then the potential threat either to the youth or the whole society exists, even if it's minimal, so perhaps one must understand that it's reasonable to be concerned about this.Quote:
"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion.
EDIT: For one to be fundamentalist doesn't require the use of violence to force one's principles on the rest of the people.
Nope - that they are not the American Taliban.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I think the thread title is Journalistic: it has taken the fundamentalist aspect and linked it with something that people have already heard of to make it sound more "catchy". The loss of accuracy that this entails is considered a price worth paying.
~:smoking:
Title: America's Taliban Future
I'm sure before it could become a Taliban style state... a Theocracy ... it would first have to transit through a fundamentalist one... and before that the government would have to show a preference for fundamentalist ideas above secular.
USA is at the emergent stage when it drops science and starts using creationist and other fundamentalist ideas to decide science review, publishing and to suppress contact with scientists.
Considering the lobbying power of the pharmacy groups and their preference for selling pills, powders, lotions and condoms backed by the CDC report that said abstinence plus safe sex beats abstinence for disease prevention by a factor of two... that this group of science and lobbying power was slapped down in favour of a fundamentalist viewpoint on what is safe sex, shows the emerging power of the fundamentalists in political policy.
With NASA that a junior political staff member saw that it would be a good thing for his career progression within his party by emphasising creationist viewpoint shows that there must be some incentive for following fundamentalist dogma. It is also worrying that a politician will decide what is science and what is not according to pressure from various lobby groups, be they commerical or fundamentalist.
EDIT: I withdraw my statement. Have a productive discussion.~:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
America is free of oppression? :laugh4:
Their continuing ability to link their views to even aid that is given for AIDS is astounding. Freedom from religion? :inquisitive:
South America is dictatorship Centeral. Possibly something to do with USA setting up and supporting most of them. Hence the recent leftwing backlash. Freedom of political oppression? :inquisitive:
I doubt the Mexicans would agree about the freedom from oppression.
Freedom of action? No one has that outside those actions we are allowed to have. And with survilence in the dear ol' USA second only to China what actions you have are becoming ever more heavily scrutinised.
Even habeus corpus has been circumvented with suspects.
You seem to be seeing what you want to.
I'm not going to bother to defend Europe. We generally give the world freedom as we are too weak to alter anything - which is freedom of a sort.
~:smoking: