We've always been pretty crazy like this. I've come up with lots of hypotheses why this is, but I still don't understand it well. I think part of it is isolation from other people and broader perspectives, but that doesn't explain why most of Canada, despite being similarly geographically isolated and sparsely populated, has much more sensible inhabitants.
Things have been getting worse, though, since the current ruling party has spent a few decades allied with the fundamentalists for their votes.
I wonder whether it will surprise you that no politicians in the US can admit to agnosticism or atheism unless they are running for local offices in a few large cities. It's just not accepted that non-christians can be "moral". I'm somewhat cautious about who I tell that I am not a believer -- and I'm definitely more outspoken about it than most.
As for why they hate science in particular, powerful people want to be able to shape everybody else's perception of reality. (appends quote)
Renminbi: Ohh... Well, until yesterday, I thought that renminbi was a fraction of a yuan for some reason.
in this day and age: When I took science courses in the university, my classmates were nearly all christian (though generally not fundamentalists). I was very surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. Some of the professors, even...
the US not a developed country:
When we were struggling to understand how we let the people of New Orleans die, some hit upon the idea that maybe it truly does make the most sense to think of the US as a third-world nation -- great wealth alongside great poverty, no social cohesion, etc.
Here's at least a local dystopia, though I'm not sure it is of the sort that is likely to spread widely: chemical contentment. A very large number of people are taking antidepressant medication and a very large number of people are taking calming medications (e.g., against "attention deficit disorder"). Although some people need them due to inherent brain chemistry problems, I think many are using them to numb their rational and natural responses to their environment. It's easier to change oneself than to change the world, but the world is the one that needs to change. (it's been too long since I read
The Futurological Congress for me to tie it in with this...)
Well, "change oneself" is incorrect. More like "allow oneself to be changed".
An extra bit on reality from an article that was published last year. The author was quoting "a senior adviser to Bush":
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
(ellipsis in original)