Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Religion in America
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/10/study-americans-want-more-religion-in-politics/?hpt=hp_t2
Interesting piece in that it posits that with the decline of religion in America, many Americans want more religion in politics.
0
Comments
Really? "We cannot have apples if there are oranges. One will win and one will lose :buck: ". Doi doi doi :buck: .
Goodness, that is quite a leap. I live in Washington state, where we clearly voted in gay marriage AND legal marijuana use. Or did I miss something?
The 'research' cited in this article is from The Pew Research Forum's Religion & Public Life Project. Thankfully, they are using a non-biased evidence base (not).
I wonder what the chances are that the IRS will amend or lift some of the terms of their tax exemption laws from the pressure put on them by the 'religious right'? After Hobby Lobby made history with their explicit religiously informed denial to cover the 'abortion pill', I'm less than surprised to witness the confidence behind those like Garlow and his mega evangelical church to spread their tentacles where the ought not to be. Good article.
Except for all the Americans who think religion has no place in politics. :-/ .
If those are my two choices, then sign me up for advancing the radical homosexual agenda.
It doesn't really make any sense. The main reason there are different states is to cater to preference, no?
The advancing the "radical homosexual agenda" IS religious liberty in action! This is democracy! Those who would prefer a theocracy can go back in time to old Tibet, and see how well a theocracy serves the people. Maybe a visit to Sikkim might provide a glimpse. Or Vatican City.
I ended up reading much of the PEW article too and found it better balanced. While there was an uptick most of it comes from the religious right.
My own personal view is that politics corrupts religion and vis versa, so they should be kept separate.
There's a reason separation of church and state was written into the Constitution.
I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with the article. I just said it was an interesting article.
Huh?
That's what different countries are for, if you really want to do whatever you want. The United States is a single country, under one binding Constitution and Bill of Rights. Granted there is a tug-of-war between State and Federal that's always in play that allows states some leeway, but there are some issues that states must fall in line with (such as anti-discrimination laws, or declarations of unconstitutionality by The Supreme Court).
There are some areas where we can differ, but the major areas, such as Civil Rights... should be across-the-board, uniting us instead of dividing us. Slavery had to be yes or no. Segregation had to be yes or no. Women's equality had to be yes or no. Same-sex marriage... we're working on that, but it's going to end up either yes or no (it's ridiculous to be married in one state but not in another; it's still the same country).
^^^ are you allowed to marry trees in the 'land of the fee'? [sic]
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=3945efb24607018569a0f4b2f3497611
:buck: .
@lobster People can want to, but I don't think they can (legally). A tree can't "consent" at any rate!
That's not to say a religion can't make a pronouncement of marriage, but it's really what the government recognizes that's up in the air (and, I think, the more important question). Religions certainly don't agree, so it's good what they say doesn't affect the marriage certificates, rights, protections, benefits, and responsibilities of married couples and their families!
Land of the free... sure, free to do and say whatever you want, but not free of the consequences! I'd say we're the "Land of the Mostly Free, Probably".
It's like freedom of speech. You can say what you want, but if that happens to include threatening the President? You're screwed!
I can assure you that we'll make sure America is fabulous.
@Vinlyn and @Toraldris
The rules differ from state to state which indicate preference of living. Same here with provinces. Sure Federal law trumps state and provincial laws but if for example one state allows for marijuana use and one doesn't, a person can move.
Dig what I'm saying?
If it were not so there would be no variance between state/provincial laws.
@Ourself, where you get the idea that you have is beyond me.
You say a person can move. Really? Some can. Many, perhaps even most cannot.
You seem to have the idea that Americans set up some colonies within the borders of our nation. Well, get over that idea. I don't know anything about where you live, and clearly you know nothing about where I live.
We are supposed to be 50 United States. Your concept went out with the founding of this nation, and certainly died with the end of the Civil War.
No. The reason the states have some measure of autonomy in certain realms is that the federal gov't can't be bothered to micromanage all aspects of life, including driver's license exams, whether or not a driver can make a right turn on a red light or not, the dispensing of liquor licenses, regulation of hunting and fishing on public land, whether or not a swim test is required for graduation from highschool, and other trivial matters.
@Dakini a lot of right wingers want federalism or the designation of as many decisions as possible on the states.
I don't know what you're on about to be honest. It sounds like you're saying a person cannot get a job and move to another state if they wish. It could take some longer than others but it happens all the time.
You make it sound like a prison, lol.
Tomaetoe, tomahtoe.
I think @Dakini hit upon the key phrase "trivial matters". That's where "preference" and diversity come in for individual states. Non-trivial matters are another story. There has to be some framework of non-trivial issues that bind us as a country, a nation, a "union". I'm not sure how Canada works so I'll refrain from speaking about Canada.
@Toraldris It's pretty much the same. What the majority wants it gets so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority or go against federal law. However, what the majority wants differs by region.
In this case even if the majority want more religion in politics, that infringes on the rights of the minority as put forth by federal law so it will never happen.
After that, "trivial" is pretty subjective.
@ourself Sounds a lot like the USA the way you say it. Here we have some "red states" (majority Republican and religious) that think civil rights issues (like LGBT marriage) should be a matter of popular vote. Were that the case, they could ban outright anything they didn't like, and it would become a tyranny of the masses. That's precisely what the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the federal government, are there to prevent. It's a system with plenty of checks and balances, but some people want everything to go their way without interference from that pesky Constitution, and federal government be damned!
Just out of curiosity because I'm fairly ignorant of the US reality, but what if a person has a job a family and house in a state where marijauna is not legal and he wants to smoke it freely every time he wishes.
Just don't get caught. Be discrete.
Well, most jobs don't random drug test once you get hired you have to show up stoned or something to get tested and fired, but if you drive a company vehicle and get in an accident even if it's not your fault they'll drug test you and fire you for finding it in your system. And if you get arrested for pot you might get fired if they find out. So you have that to consider.
Many people of course smoke pot where it's illegal, that's why it's a billion dollar iindustry. You buy it off your buddies who get it off other buddies, and smoke it in your home or at parties where people are cool about it. You don't cruise the streets looking for strangers on street corners. But it is illegal and you run the risk of being busted. What happens then depends on your state and the individual cop and if you've got a record so they feel like hassling you and even your race enters into it in spite of people who try to say race doesn't matter.
Hopefully the well being of the family trumps the want. Other than that, they can lobby and hope for the best or maybe ask for a job transfer if it's feasible.
I don't live in the States either but Canada works in a similar fashion. Oddly enough, the States is more tolerant of weed than Canada is these days.
Thank you all, to be honest for spiritual purposes it is understandable the rejection of liquor and drugs, but for legal purposes I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to use both for recreation, except when performing certain tasks.
Well, as to liquor in the US, folks over 18 or 21 (varies by state) are allowed to drink liquor-- but get caught driving drunk and you can lose your driving license. There is a Federal law against marijuana ownership/possession, but smoking it is legal if you make all the smoke vanish without getting others high also. That to a degree is changing, some states have marijuana use legal for medicinal reasons or both medicinal and recreational use.
Back to the OP, the survey is pretty much useless anyway, because it only asks about "religion" and that is a meaningless abstract. The same people who claim loudest they want more "religion" in government are screaming about the dangers of the Muslim Sharia law taking over. For those people "religion" means Fundamentalist Christianity. For others, it means a general morality. For even others, all they want is permission to put Nativity scenes on courthouse lawns and open football games with prayer.
Ask the questions in the right way and you can get any answer you want.
And THAT sums it up, right there.
Except that it has become very popular to ignore polls for that reason, and then (as in an election) some of the well done polls turn out to be almost exactly correct (as the Romney learned on election night).
And, to be honest, each of us writes our little sound bite on this forum that has little real meaning, particularly in the big scheme of stuff.
Any poll, any discussion on this forum is little more than a drop in the ocean.
Two words: Jesse Pinkman.
Thank you, I had to google it and it seems it is a character from a TV show.
From the secular UK, it strikes me that to be a 'good, patriotic, American', you also have to be a Christian.
Is there any truth in this?
Some. There is a vocal segment of the USA who insists we are a "Christian Nation" founded by Christians and designed to be Christian and only Christians can be real Americans. And by that they mean Protestant Christian. Some if pressed will say that Jewish and Catholic may be OK, but Muslim and Atheist are definitely not welcome in the club.
This theocratic strain has been with us since our founding. It's kinda a low grade fever that comes and goes depending on how much the people in power feel they need to rouse the population. For instance, the long cold war with Communism caused us to add the world "God" to just about everything from our Pledge to our money because that evil Communism was atheist and it was one way of showing we were the chosen people.
The problem comes from how often "God" has been referenced in American history. For example, the Declaration Of Independence states, in part:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
...
and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
On the other hand, over the past decade, Gallup Poll results indicate that only 54-59% of Americans say that religion is "very important" in their lives. Yet, 80% claim to have a particular Christian or Jewish faith.
Yet, not once in my life have I ever personally had a conversation when even one person stated or implied that "to be a 'good, patriotic, American', you also have to be a Christian." Of course, as a well-educated professional educator, and a Democrat, I tend to hang out with a certain type of person more than others. So my social group is skewed.
I think the problem is that it is the most vocal group that tends to have the view that Tosh asks about.
I think one problem is that we proudly display our craziness for the world to see. When I was stationed back in the '80s in England for a few years, I heard occasional people in the pubs rant about how they should round up all the (foreigners, but they called them other names) and ship them back where they came from. As an American serviceman I was a foreigner, but I was the right sort of foreign if you know what I mean. But England didn't put people like that on network television or give them their own prime time radio talk show and act like it was a valid viewpoint.
After 9-11 a bunch of our elected officials actually called for rounding up all Muslims and sticking them in camps. These important, mainstream public officials also actually ranted that somehow a Muslim community center should not be built several blocks from the site of the towers because it would somehow contaminate the place, and this idiocy was given serious treatment by our networks and paraded in public for all the world to see. These politicians and talking network heads are still out there, using fear to stay in power and on the air. Sad.
So while before it was the war against Godless Communism that drove the religious identity here, now it's the war against Terrorism that for most people means a war against Islam. Many people here, after hearing the hype machine on the networks, are terrified that Muslims are going to take over America. Somehow. It's never explained in a way that makes sense. Either it's an inside job (Obama is a secret Muslim with a plot to become a Muslim dictator) or now on a famous insane cable network, they're saying ISIS is planning on infecting people coming across the Mexican border with Ebola. Politicians who expect to be re-elected actually say this on camera.
So instead of that crazy loudmouth in the pub that nobody takes seriously, our craziness is elected and given pulpits and talk shows and is out there for the world to see.
Wondering how people felt about the Bill Maher-Ben Affleck exchange 2 weeks ago.
I think they had every right to build the community center there, but I think the timing of the announcement was unwise and very "in your face".
In re Muslims taking over America, ISIL has made such a claim.
I think it was, or at least came to be a set-up for promoting Harris' new book.
Perhaps. Just as Affleck's appearance was timed to match the general release of his new film "Gone Girl", which debuted nationwide on October 3 (the same week as the broadcast). The book got plugged; the film got plugged.
Yeah. BA was on the show for his movie and SH was on for his book. Harris got more attention, though.
Never cared much for Affleck and his acting (if that's what you want to call it). Never thought Harris was anything more than full of shit. Actors offering socio political critique is, to me, about as worthless as atheists critiquing religion.
That's fair.
Ah, but you see, that's the danger of pushing extreme positions as valid. It allows the "reasonable" person to make excuses. The "reasonable" person then gets to say "Well, of course they have a RIGHT to build a community center within sight of the towers. And of COURSE we don't blame all Muslims for the actions of an extreme few. It's just the timing, you see. Let's wait..."
Until when? You really think that if they decided to try building it a year later or even today, the usual extremist politicians and talking heads would not have screamed about it? What's the waiting period before they get to exercise their rights? You see how insidious it is?
So the extreme position of temporarily suspending people's rights until we aren't upset when they exercise them becomes the "reasonable" position, because an even more extreme belief that all Muslims are evil is allowed to go mainstream.
But I'm starting to preach. The world is crazy because the people in it are crazy. And I count myself in that bunch, by the way. I believe people are better than we have proved ourselves to be over and over. How crazy is that?
Last thing I heard there was a guy calling for the sterilization of Muslims. To be honest I think the Muslim problem is even a grossest exageration than the Ebola and Avian Flu. Unfortunately in some things despite of all the progress humans haven't changed a bit, still dreaming with vampires and werewolves. It is really sad to see where the world is going to.
Of course, I can only defend a person's right to be Muslim. The theocratic Near East governments with their oppression (especially of women) and the fact that someone in an otherwise civilized society is in danger of their lives because they posted a cartoon of Mohammed should deeply disturb us. I know it's way, way more complicated than "Muslims hate our freedoms" but still.
Islamic fundamentalists are not more lethal than other criminal organizations including neo nazis, and in fact they strike me as less lethal. Their mediatic executions like in the iS case are fewer in number than those oof many regimes who kill in the shadow. The problem is that when these things are propagandized people get a distorted sense of proportion. It is the same thing for airplane disasters versus car accidents. The ebola virus for instance is not very easy to spread in civilized countries, yet all the media coverage may give a false sense of danger.
In so far as ISIS they are not on board with liberal ideas: self determination, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and living in a democratic system. Their ideas emanate from the 7th century and this is where they would like to take us. They are pernicious and are fascists and should be dealt with as such.
I know Nazis (not the Zombie kind) are people too, but I don't feel that we should tolerate that which is intolerable.
That's just not accurate. Virtually every article I've read in the media, virtually every news report I've watched in the media has outlined how difficult it is to contract ebola.
The touble is that you seem to be advocating conflict based soley by some group's policies on matters of "democracy" being in contrast to your own. They call that imperialism, which is the denying of peoples' right to self-governance. If they want to be governed by fascists, and as deplorable as that may seem, that's ther business and none of ours.
And as far as deaaling with fascists "as such" the last time we engaged in that we pretty much leveled Europe and killed god-only-knows how many people in the processs. Is that what you advocate? Are you saying we should treat this like Dresden? Tokyo? Berlin? Hiroshima?