I've just posted a summary of our recent trip to four Scandinavian countries. In addition to seeing the sights, we also are reflecting on the socialo structure and societal attitudes. I know this is is not a travel topic as such, but it relates to the experiencing of another way of life.

What I am intersted in is this: why is it that in America which stresses church attendance we emphasize a certain rugged individualism and in Scandinavian countries with very little church going there is more concern for community values? I see this reflected in social systems there where there is provision for education and health. And I wonder about the same in U.S.

Anyone want to reflect on such matters with me...Bill Longman at [email protected]

P.S. I'm a retired minister and thus the question of social caring is important.

I know this sounds argumentative . . . I don't really mean for it to sound that way . . . but I think you have made a generalization that is not really supportable. I have yet to travel anywhere that had a corner on the rude OR polite market.

I would, however, agree that if you took your opinion entirely from mass media (TV, newspapers, radio) it would be easy to reach the conclusion that you've reached. It seems in the US "we" like to bash one another . . . Church is full of hypocrites, Schools are taught by fools, American Society underfunds education, All Politicians are Liars . . .

Im glad you had fun on your trip.

OK, for the sake of an argument...

What I'm looking at is basic values. Do we in the U.S. prize individual success at the expense of community concerns? I see problems in education, health, caring for elderly, etc. as reflections of this. Scandinavians it seems accept a much higher tax rate and are willing to thus support the free education and health care of others.

I know, this seems like a capitalism vs. socialism dichotomy, But I'm searching for underlying values. Please tell me that Danes don't really care that much about other people (I know they are really stressed by the immigrant problem) and that Americans really are a caring people, down deep!!!
Go ahead, argue with me.

Bill [email protected]

Dear Bill,

Somehow, despite our rugged individualism, Americans managed to create public schools through the baccalaureate, public safety systems, Social Security and its attendant satellites, welfare and medicaide, public housing, a strong union movement, a national highway system, the best telephone system in the world, a national post office, consumer-owned electrical networks and a great rail network. Not to mention more Nobel Laureates and winners of the World Series than anyone else.

I think that you are concerned that all of these accomplishments are being destroyed by a generation motivated by greed.

Not necessarily so.

Oooops,

Forgot to mention the richest society ever known, with the flattest distribution of wealth ever.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that we have the "flattest" distribution of wealth and I certainly believe that the term "richest" when applied to our scoiety is very subjective.
Is church going necessarily coincidental with concern for community values? Apparently not (if the Scandinavia example is correct) and I'm not sure that an emphasis on rugged individualism precludes a concern for community values.
Perhaps one "problem" is the knee-jerk reaction some Americans tend to have to anything that hints of "socialism" as being "bad." Why? Supposedly this is somehow antagonistic or at least not compatible with "capitalism." But do we really have a free market and capitalism in the US when the government intervenes to thwart the forces of supply and demand by bailing out, for example, an airline industry that has overbuilt and a motorcycle manufacturer that refused to modernize its design and remain competitive?
The "richest" country ever known??? where the newborn death rate is scandalous and millions are unable to afford health care...sorry, I don't think so.

Ozarksbill : glad you enjoyed your trip !
I'd like to add our observation when traveling through Scandinavia about a month ago : in USA the people are attending church much more and all stores (most, anyway) are open for business (moneymaking) on Sundays - and in Scandinavia, where most people admit they attend church rarely, all (most!) stores and other businesses were closed on Sunday . Interesting.....

Intrepid, you took few thoughts right out of my head!

Hi Bill. Good questions. First, I agree with what Intrepid said, that if what you say about Scandinavia is true -- very little church-going there -- then we might conclude that church-going is not a prerequisite for a sense of community. (Or, if there <i>used</i> to be a lot of church-going in Scandinavia, we might conclude it's not necessary in order to <i>maintain</i> a sense of community.)

This reminds of a recent op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times, &quot;Believe It, Or Not&quot; where he wrote &quot;<i>Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view.</i>&quot;

I also agree with Intrepid that an emphasis on rugged individualism does not necessarily preclude an accompanying sense of community. However, I think it may be the case that a sense of community could be somewhat less than in a culture that does not put so much emphasis on individualism.

Still yet again, I agree with Intrepid's questioning of Ira's assertion that the U.S. has the &quot;<i>flattest distribution of wealth ever.</i> The website below -- one of many, I would bet -- argues the opposite, stating &quot;<i>Today the United States is the most unequal of any industrialized country in terms of income and, more importantly, wealth. And the situation is worsening more rapidly here with each passing year.</i>

(&quot;Wealth Inequality in the United States
Leads the World&quot; http://www.tcf.org/Press_Releases/Wolff.html)

I think it was during the Republican primaries of 2000 when George W. Bush called Jesus Christ his &quot;favorite political philosopher.&quot; (see http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/p...2000-03-22.htm) A favorite hypothetical question among a lot of young Christians today is: What Would Jesus Do? Would Jesus tend to share Bush's view of how U.S. society should look? Or John Kerry's view? Or Jesse Jackson's view?. etc. Would Jesus lean toward a pure free-market system? A modified free-market system? Capitalism, Socialism, Communism? (I think we could rule out Totalitarianism and Fascism.) Would Jesus look more favorably on Scandinavian societies, where people were not as rich, but perhaps also not as poor? Or would Jesus look more favorably on the United States?

What's the measure of a &quot;great&quot; society?

Ooops! I meant to say: However, I think it may be the case that a sense of community could be somewhat less in a culture that puts so much emphasis on individualism.

&quot;But do we really have a free market and capitalism in the US when the government intervenes to thwart the forces of supply and demand by bailing out, for example, an airline industry that has overbuilt and a motorcycle manufacturer that refused to modernize its design and remain competitive?&quot;

I think this proves ira's point and disputes Bill's.

Also, I think ira is correct with both his &quot;flattest distribution&quot; &quot;richest&quot; comments . . . neither of which are subjective statistically. The huge majority of Americans make approximately the same annual salary / wage. And according to the Commerce Department figures, no other country in the world has such a large percentage of its workforce with earnings in such a narrow range.

Ira's richest comment, too, is easily proven unless you want to get all metaphysical about what &quot;richest&quot; means. But in a material sense there is no diputing a couple of simple facts:

1. MEAN age of a car owned in the US has steadily increased.
2. MEAN price of a home owned in the US has steadily increased.

capo, the only thing I've ever read that was MORE inconclusive and open to interpretation than the NYT article you are referring to is practically anything written by Herman Melville.

back to Ozark'sbill original question:
Personally I think many people place a great store on the outward manifestations of religious belief when they should be concentrating on a life lived as ethically as possible. By ethical I mean causing the least practical harm to other people. To me this involves the obvious (not breaking laws that protect people) and the less than obvious not complaining when my taxes are spent for the greater good of society ( I live in Canada and I am VERY glad that a portion of my tax dollars ensures that not just me but my fellow Canadians receive adequate(not perfect) health care. I also take it upon myself to criticize my government when I feel it is not acting in the best interests of its citizens.
My perception is that Scandinavians take a communal view of society (i.e. the importance of the greater good versus individualism). Sometimes this is a good thing (medical care for all ( in general good social services)), strong egalitarian principles and a strong feeling that society must take care of its weaker members. Sometimes it is a bad thing - lack of incentive to &quot;better&quot; oneself and quite frankly the ease with which the lazy can become parasites on society. Does this make Scandinavians more morally upright than Americans or vice versa - I do not know. I just know that it is a mistake to confuse professed religiosity with true morality. A Moslem friend of mine (who was an extemely ethical and religious person) once answered a question about another Moslem woman who always wore a hijab - &quot;Is she religious ?&quot; The answer &quot;No - she just wears a piece of cloth on her head.&quot; The same can be said about many Christians who attend church every Sunday.

Re: <i>Somehow, despite our rugged individualism, Americans managed to create public schools through the baccalaureate, public safety systems, Social Security and its attendant satellites, welfare and medicaide, public housing, a strong union movement, a national highway system, the best telephone system in the world, a national post office, consumer-owned electrical networks and a great rail network. Not to mention more Nobel Laureates and winners of the World Series than anyone else.</i>

Ah yes, the &quot;World&quot; Series. Unlike the World Cup, it's one of world's greatest misnomers.

All of those things you say above are true, Ira, but it's not as if all of them were -- or are -- unamimously supported by American citizens. Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't FDR have to fight for most, if not all, of his New Deal -- or as critics would likely call them, &quot;socialist&quot; -- programs?

Ironcially a program like Social Security, while established with the best of intentions -- keeping the elderly out of dire poverty -- has become a massive entitlement program, &quot;socialism&quot; run amok. The reason for handing out benefits to everyone was politically shrewd -- to create a substantial voting bloc with an interest in defending the system against future attacks (SS has not been termed the &quot;third rail&quot; of American politics for nothing) but it, <i>ideally</i>, should have kept to the original intent, to help the poorest elderly.

Re: <i>I just know that it is a mistake to confuse professed religiosity with true morality.</i>

Very true, JMM. Also, what people consider to be &quot;true&quot; morality may differ. For just one example, while some people feel it's &quot;immoral&quot; for people of the same sex to love one another, I and others happen to feel it's &quot;immoral&quot; for people to condemn this as &quot;immoral.&quot;

Hi Capo,

I'm glad someone caught my little joke.

Hey, thanks Capo et al for the good comments, including one also by a political science prof to my email address.

I can myself make a critique of the
&quot;Scandinavian way&quot; along the lines of paternalism and do realize our own American experiment has generated a very vibrant social system. But the things Ira mentions are nowadays being curtailed or threatened: public safety, Social Security, education, health services, highways, postal service, electrical networks, welfare, etc. What I see as values in America are economic initiatives and democractic principles.

What someone has said is that in Europe there was a strong government before the rise of capitalism so people accepted its dominant role whereas in America we began with less government often regarded with suspicion. So in the one the people turn to government as first resource for social needs whereas in the other, government is more of a last resort, relying instead on individual resources or charity.

My problem with our religion in all this is that it doesn't support a caring society but has more of an emphasis on personal salvation. And the President is buying into a piousness that really isn't concerned with the least of these our brethern. He's more in tune with corporate enhancement. And the market has no morals. In our rich land I see great disparities in wealth. In Denmark, for instance, there is much emphasis on salaries that are more equal regardless of labor. Am I being too critical? Enough preaching for now!

Bill [email protected]

You're welcome, Bill. I've always been interested in the different ways societies are structured, and found your question a good one. The state I'm originally from, Minnesota, has a lot of Scandinavians and I don't think it's a coincidence that it seems to always rank quite high in &quot;quality-of-life&quot; studies.

There were different political philosophies when America began. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were, as the website below notes, advocates of a strong central government and supporters of the ratification of the Constitution. In opposition were the &quot;Anti-Federalists.&quot; I'd always thought that Jefferson was an &quot;Anti-Federalist&quot; from the start but the website below says that he was not, that he favored ratification of the Constitution along with Hamilton, but later split with Hamilton, favoring more diffusion of power. This ideological split, of course, still exists today, with ironies, like <i>some</i> &quot;states rights Republicans&quot; conveniently changing their tune and favoring the heavy hand of the federal government when a state does something with which they disagree (e.g. California and medical marijuana.)

Re: <i>My problem with our religion in all this is that it doesn't support a caring society but has more of an emphasis on personal salvation.</i>

Interesting point. Christianity -- or would it be better to say Protestantism? -- does seem to emphasize personal salvation over &quot;good works.&quot; But that brushstroke still seems a bit broad to me, as I think a lot of religious people not only care about less fortunate members of society, but actually contribute money and/or time to making their lives better (and I say that as a decidedly non-religious person.)

I have to agree with you that the President, as you put it, is &quot;buying into a piousness that really isn't concerned with the least of these our brethern&quot; and that &quot;He's more in tune with corporate enhancement.&quot;

<i>Saying</i> Jesus Christ is your &quot;favorite political philosopher&quot; is one thing; actually demonstrating it is quite another.

Ooops, forgot...

&quot;Federalist Party&quot;

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html

A timely, and somewhat-related, column.

&quot;What Ben Franklin Would Do&quot;

http://www.seattleweekly.com/feature...s-mossback.php

&quot;Conservatives see Franklin as a compassionate conservative, a man who was suspicious of public welfare (because it would create dependence), yet who tirelessly promoted voluntary associations to do public good. He was also a pro-business entrepreneur whose inventiveness was directed toward the practical. . . . Liberals find in him not only a staunch civil libertarian and progressive thinker, but a real advocate of diversity and the rule of secular law. Franklin also believed that the pursuit of money and power led to trouble: Ambition and avarice are a bad combination. In the protection of liberties, he was unequivocal?a tonic in this Ashcroft era: 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,' Franklin wrote.&quot;

The distribution of wealth in the US versus other nations is a topic that I have been interested in for years. There are two equally legitimate answers to the question of how flat or steep our income distribution curve is- the first answer addresses income before government redistribution (taxes, tax credits, social security, medicare, etc.) and after government redistribution. Of course, the &quot;after curve&quot; is considerably flatter. So, in some sense, those arguing that we have a relatively flat income distribution are correct, but so are those that believe that the curve is steep.

On the original topic, things are not always what they appear to be. Scandanavians pay some of the highest income taxes, but capital gains and real estate taxes are extremely low or, in some cases, non-existent.

As far as eduction is concerned, between student loans, grants and scholarships, even mediocre high school graduates in the US have the opportunity to attend college. I concede that the average European (or Japanese) high school graduate is superior to the average American high school graduate, but, unlike Europe and Japan, the American system tries to push all students through the same program. We don't track students beginning in their early teens. Also, the average US college graduate student is more competent than his or her European and Japanese competitors. I base this last statement on surveys of scientific literacy, among other measures.

Also, there are different definitions of community. Of the Scandanavian nations, only Finland has whole-heartedly embraced the concept of the European Union. Sweden and Denmark refuse to accept the Euro because they don't want European-wide goals dictating their monetary policy. Norway refuses to join the European Union at all, partly because the Norwegians do not want to see their oil revenues confiscated by Brussels.

I used to believe a lot of things about Europeans, some good and some bad. The closer I looked, however, the more I found that they were not much different from us.

I have not looked this board lately, and I know this post is already old. But I have to comment what Smueller said: &quot;I concede that the average European (or Japanese) high school graduate is superior to the average American high school graduate, but, unlike Europe and Japan, the American system tries to push all students through the same program.&quot;

All Scandinavian kids go through the same program. The same system is prevalent in all of Europe, except UK. We don't even have private schools in Finland. I think that the idea that European schools are divided into &quot;good ones and bad ones&quot; comes from pre-WW II times, and that does not hold true today, and hasn't in decades. And kids don't need a scholarship to go through university and get a degree, because everybody gets a monthly allowance from government. Not much, but combined with housing aid and part-time work, enough to get you through your studies, so you don't have to ask money from your parents.

I cannot comment Bill's post, because I have not thought about it, and my English is not good enough for philosophy. But it is true that church-going is not a very popular Sunday past-time. Only 1,6 % of Finns say that they go to church regularly, and even that does not mean that &quot;regularly&quot; is every Sunday.

Instead of linking church-going and morals together, one could approach the question by looking at Scandinavian's relationship to religion. Religion and faith are very personal and private matters here. They are not something one shouts from the rooftops or something one &quot;shares&quot;. People usually don't feel any need to go to church, because church does not represent community and their possible relationship with God is private.

I saw a TV-interwiew of a catholic priest turned into Lutheran minister. He was originally from Equador, and had lived in Finland for almost 30 years. He was asked if he thinks Finns are heathens because we never go to church. He laughed and saidquot;On the contrary, I find Finns very religious, they just don't use the church to express it.&quot; He said it had taken him some years to understand that just like hundreds of years ago, also a modern Finn's church is the forest. And that is where he goes when he needs to feel the nearness of God. Usually it is the forest, but for some it is the sea.

Hi Elina!

Glad to hear from someone in Finland. We have fond memories in Helsinki of strolling down the Esplanade on a sunny day, lunching at Kappellis &amp; Strindberg, also dinner at the Elite, browsing in the bustling market, cruising around the islands, admiring the Silbelius monument and Rock Church and Lutheran cathedral and square, visiting Seurasaari open air museum, seeing the Mannerheim house, etc. And thanks for your thoughtful comments which I will answer here on Fodors to continue the discussion.

Your focus is on education and also on religious participation. First off, I do admire the support of education in the Nordic countries and the willingness to accept paying taxes to support it. While presently finances are a problem in the U.S. I do believe that public education is generally available for many. Sometimes it does indeed mean work and sacrifice by student and parent.

Being in the four Nordic countries, I must say that I can agree that crime is lower and poverty less evident. The U.S. is such a large and diverse culture so we do have problems, but I assure you that in my small city of Springfield, MO, we are quite safe and secure which is true elsewhere. Many people do struggle to make ends meet these days, middle class as well as poor, but hopefully the economy will pick up.

As I originally posted, it is interesting that in Scandinavian countries there is such minimal church attendance yet evidence of social concerns. Here we may be too individualistic, in our religion as well as in society. Some of us though do make the connection between church and societal concerns. People I talked with during our trip overseas did emphasize faith as a private matter. I commend all people in any country who can truly say that their religion does make a difference in compassion toward their fellow human beings.
Bill Longman in Missouri U.S.A.