TheStatutoryApe said:
Arildno is entertaining when he gets haughty.
Do you think that cultural/national enmity from so many different countries so close together sort of masks or dilutes the sort of racial and religious extremism we see here in the US having a large homogeneous culture? It has always seemed to me that cultural/national rivalry is probably a much more prevalent (and perhaps more acceptable) outlet for such tendencies in Europe, assuming that some people simply have a psychological need to be zenophobic or elitist.
Possibly.
On the other hand, I think that the relative prevalence of "extremist congregrations" in the US, compared to Europe has much to do with that in a sense, such congregations are more "viable" in the US, due to a couple of structural reasons:
1. The welfare state
In most European countries, we pay charity by means of our tax bill, rather than through private channels. Thus, one of the pillars upon which the respectability of the faith communities rests in the US (and for that matter, the network of mosques in Islamic countries) has become undermined.
Whereas in the US, charity as organized through the local churches is one of the MAJOR ways in which people get an outlet for their altruism, Europeans think they have done enough by paying their taxes instead. The church is NOT in Europe, "a community of The Good", rather, it is primarily "a community of The Believers", and that's a difference.
Thus, extremely conservative church communities may well gain respectability in the US by being sincerely devoted to charitable issues, whereas that won't happen here in Europe.
2. State Church, and state funding
a) In Europe, the church hierarchy is STRONG, and receives a lot of funding from the state.
Through that mechanism, secular politicians have a handle on what the church's policy "ought to be". In Norway, for example, bishops have been installed because they were liberal with respect to gay/lesbian issues, more than out of "clerical merits".
Thus, contemporary ideas may gain ground faster in religious establishment institutions in Europe than in large communities in the US (there, new ideas will be the hallmark of "fledgling communities", who will try to carve out a new niche in the marketplace of faith communities)
b) To take the case of Norway, non-establishment faith communities get state funding, roughly in accordance with numbers of members.
Since people dread to lose what they've already got, the presence of state funding might well make some communities loath at developing a confrontational reactionary stance towards the "benevolent" Mother State, in fear of having those money withdrawn.
c) Since most faith communities DO get means from the State, why should individuals bother to pay for the maintenance of a particular faith community?
One joins, instead, a community that provides its religious services "for free", and where the individual member is NOT called upon to make donations.
And thus, extremist groups might not evolve away from the single, fringe lunatic into a full-blown extremist community.