Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House?

2011-07-30T22:10:19Z

Dennis:

== Is it possible that... ==

...those who are elected to the House tend to better represent the [[Best of the Public]]? Would it be possible to examine the overall backgrounds of House members as opposed to Senate members to ascertain how far their backgrounds are removed from the public? I suspect we would find that far fewer Senate members tend to have "common man" backgrounds, and thus, that it's easier for them to fall into the limousine liberal mindset. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:11, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

: Superb insight ... and I think the rules of the House are more welcoming to the [[best of the public]] than the clubby rules of the Senate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:59, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting Note and My take ==

When the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 was shoved through the Democratic-controlled Congress—despite strong opposition from the dramatically dying Whig Party—and signed into law by Franklin Peirce, it was the biggest setback for the Abolition movement since the Fugitive Slave Act four years earlier. The passage of this bill led to the formation of the Republican Party—and the final demise of the Whigs—and the first ever Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1855. Yet even though the opposition held control of the House, the Democrats still held control of the Senate and thus it wouldn't be until the Election of 1860 before the Republicans took control of both Houses.

I think we still need to remember that the reason the Senate is more Liberal than the House, is because there is a laggard factor. Congressmen serve a term of two years, while a term is six years for a Senator. Six years ago the nation was very upset with the actions of Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katerina and thus it is important to look at the Senate as a window into the past. Now before someone starts talking about reforming the election process, remember that the US Constitution originally mandated that the Senate be elected by state legislatures—not popular vote—and if we look at the makeup of state legislatures in 2004 and 2006 we would see that the US Senate would have been made up of more Republicans than Democrats, because of Republican majority in state legislatures. My point; the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing the first time around! -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 13:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Longer terms to avoid reactionary politics ==

From what I know of the Australian Senate which based on the US Senate, the longer and overlapping terms are to keep the government under check.. unless there was a huge backlash against liberals/conservitives for a good ten years there will always be a strong opposition to keep radical laws at bay whether it is conservitives rolling out huge tax cuts or liberals undertaking massive tax increases, it is there to make moderation the result and not radicalism. [[User:Jtibbs|Jtibbs]] 02:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

'''== Big institutions are almost always dominated by satan (not by Christ) =='''

a small institution might be dominated by Christ,,,,,,,
but large populations are unsaved (many are unsaved,,,few are saved)

the Senator is selected by the whole state, (the Many are unsaved),
but

the House Representative is selected by only 2 Counties (the Few are saved)

a few Counties might be dominated by Christ,
but most States are dominated by satan

Size matters.

the bigger a govt is,,,,,,,,,the more likely it's satanic

the UN is horribly satanic

the USA was dominated by Christian culture and Bible-belief, so the usa became the super-blessed lone super-power PROMISED LAND of the good life

but non-Christian nations (most nations) are dominated by non-bible-believers,,,,and are ruined by their satanic cultures

dennis

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-19T15:59:58Z

Dennis:

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==A federal England and freedom of speech==

This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.

I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:<br>
::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/12/immigrationpolicy.immigrationcalling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Move Request ==

Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that "England" as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, "Britain" is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]

== Population Density?? ==

I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==
the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)
the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)

the politicians and people will follow the Church,
because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,
see theelijahchallenge.org

the Church speaks with authority,
and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)

Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,
a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,
we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,
the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,

so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17

but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,
so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes
see www.bible-codes.org

9-11-01 world trade center collapse
9-11-08 world trade collapse
9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,
during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)
2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08

SIGNS FROM GOD!

== '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==

It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,

to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,

the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,
and those Christians prayed for good govt,
and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)

Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,

so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,

and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)

the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)

mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,
but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.

all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,
the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,
WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,
CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,

but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,
and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,
and the endtimes began

www.bible-codes.org

written by dennis

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-19T12:43:18Z

Dennis:

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==A federal England and freedom of speech==

This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.

I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:<br>
::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/12/immigrationpolicy.immigrationcalling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Move Request ==

Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Population Density?? ==

I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==
the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)
the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)

the politicians and people will follow the Church,
because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,
see theelijahchallenge.org

the Church speaks with authority,
and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)

Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,
a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,
we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,
the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,

so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17

but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,
so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes
see www.bible-codes.org

9-11-01 world trade center collapse
9-11-08 world trade collapse
9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,
during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)
2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08

SIGNS FROM GOD!

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-19T12:39:40Z

Dennis:

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==A federal England and freedom of speech==

This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.

I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:<br>
::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/12/immigrationpolicy.immigrationcalling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Move Request ==

Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Population Density?? ==

I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

the Church leads the nation and govt,
the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)
the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)

the politicians and people will follow the Church,
because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,
see theelijahchallenge.org

the Church speaks with authority,
and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)

Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,
a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,
we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,
the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,

so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17

but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,
so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes
see www.bible-codes.org

9-11-01 world trade center collapse
9-11-08 world trade collapse
9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,
during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)
2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08

SIGNS FROM GOD!