Thanks, everyone. Let me first point something out that should be obvious, but apparently is not. My initial post did not endorse the conclusions of the article. I thought it might provoke thought and discussion, which indeed it did, although not always in the same posts. 
Bloomie, I basically agree with what you’re saying. As you know, however, I’m uncomfortable with your repeated assertion that America is remarkably homogeneous. I think I understand what you mean, that you’re speaking in relative terms, but I also think that that assertion, if accepted unquestioningly, is the start for many European misconceptions about America. So I’m uncomfortable with that. But I’m sure you don’t really want me to be uncomfortable, right?
Claudine: have you considered that your comments re Poland are in a way a parody of what many Americans say about Europeans, particularly of the French? A little acquaintance with Polish history would suggest that Poles haven’t much reason to feel loyalty to their neighbors. It is interesting to note that in WWII the Poles had more men under arms fighting the Nazis than did the French (approximately one million Poles). And that Polish and Czech airmen had the highest rates of combat victories during the Battle of Britain–indeed, Polish airmen made up fully 20% percent of the RAF at the height of that campaign. Poland also provided its “allies” France and England with Enigma, without which the war against Nazi Germany might have had a drastically different outcome. Nevertheless, Polish units were not allowed to march in the VE Day parade in London lest that offend “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Loyalty works both ways. 
Brigitte: thanks for your precisions re religious status and establishment in Europe. Those are complications that we have, for the most part, been spared as well. It’s part of the reason that anti-clericalism per se is not such a part of American attitudes to organized religion. You also do me the favor of not equating my views with the author’s.
U2 wrote:
One might have initially thought a European’s perspective would be considered, rather than summarily dismissed.
but unfortunately only quoted a part of one phrase from what was a fairly lengthy post, rather than a “summary dismissal.” Nice try.
Gary, I’m still puzzled that you continue to argue over words–and by the fact that you appear unable to separate what I say in my posts from what Weigel says in his articles. Weigel obviously intended his characterization of St. Paul’s to convey the idea that it is no longer the home of a vibrant religious practice, but rather is, as you say, a heritage site. Architecture is part of heritage last time I checked, and I believe the architect in question has been well regarded over the years. Again, Weigel’s point is clearly a comparison of the relative role of religion in public life in England and in America–a point which you later concede.
You characterize, rather than critique, Weigel’s views as “poppycock” and “claptrap,” but your use of the word Englightenment makes me wonder whether you even know what Bloomfield was referring to.
The “crux” of your point happens to be the point that I was making in my earlier posts, but in no way signifies that America lacks a history, any more than the fact that France is part of Europe strips it of any proper history of its own worth studying. The only lesson to be learned is that the history of any country is better studied in a total context rather than in isolation.
The fact that Puritans fled religious conflict in England doesn’t alter the fact that America has not experienced religious war on its own soil. This fact unquestionably explains differences in European and American outlooks on several issues. The cause of their coming to America doesn’t alter the fact that, once here, Americans of whatever stripe developed a different consciousness and attitude toward issues than remained the case in Europe. Incidentally, that fact also illustrates that there are unique aspects to the American experience, which is why, while best studied as in many respects an extension of European history, American history cannot be simply equated with European history.
Finally, some of us here in America might actually envy being at the mercy of 700 elected representatives rather than being at the mercy of 9 lifetime appointees. Or is that too openminded for you?
For the record, such as it is here, I don’t happen to agree with everything Weigel says, whether in this article or in his other writings. I do, however, think his views are worth serious consideration–as are those of the persons he cites in his article. Be it noted, he cites many European authors as well as Americans: Dawson, Revel, etc.
