Random rant on US perception of religion

Pages: 12345
@chwsks
I read XKCD religiously, so I already saw that.

I think Huffington Post, although at times highly sensationalist and biased (which I don't like) deserves a bit more respect than Fox on account of they haven't yet been caught blatantly making stuff up.

And yes, I know. The article wasn't about courts, but I did technically answer Duoas's (somewhat rhetorical) question.

@chrisname
Geez, that's unusually passionate of you. I can understand that you harbor ill feelings toward religion, but I'm not really sure why you decided to attack Duoas for it. It's not like attacking him will change his stance.

-Albatross
Albatross wrote:
Geez, that's unusually passionate of you. I can understand that you harbor ill feelings toward religion, but I'm not really sure why you decided to attack Duoas for it. It's not like attacking him will change his stance.

You're also right, it wasn't right of me to be so personal. For what it's worth, the first time I read Duoas' post, I interpreted it as being quite aggressive and sardonic and I responded in kind. The ability of the religious to affect the lives of the secular is something I feel strongly about, especially when it comes to people's rights.
chrisname wrote:
The ability of the religious to affect the lives of the secular is something I feel strongly about, especially when it comes to people's rights.


Alright, fair enough. That makes two of us. :)

-Albatross
> with 84% of the US being adherents
¿where do you get your statistics from, chrisname?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
(the range 60--80 is too wide)

> The US really is the de-facto standard of multiculturalism.
That's Canada.


> I'm glad I live in western Europe where the religious have largely lost their grasp on power
¿how is the monarchy still present?
As far as I can tell, monarchy exists as chief diplomat where as in the US our chief of state is our chief diplomat, or the vice president. More so the vice president, as when things started they didn't have much to do other than be a potential backup.
> The US really is the de-facto standard of multiculturalism.
That's Canada.


This raises another interesting point.

The US may have been the gold standard of multiculturalism at one time, but I suspect recent trends may have changed that. Though it's impossible for me to say as I haven't been to other countries that I would consider to be 'rivals' in this area (particularly, most counties in western Europe).

I think making the claim one way or the other on this issue without having personal experience in other countries is disingenuous.
ne555 wrote:
¿where do you get your statistics from, chrisname?

I used Wolfram Alpha.

ne555 wrote:
¿how is the monarchy still present?

It's not in most countries, but in those that do still have it, it's there as a figurehead and a matter of tradition, and has no actual power.
>> ¿how is the monarchy still present?
> It's not in most countries
Europe has a lot of countries. Having ~25% of monarchies is quite significant.

They may not refer themselves as `god-sent', but there are still some relationship with religion (by instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religious_role )


> it's there as a figurehead and a matter of tradition
.zo'o: I hope it is not some kind of religious tradition.
¿but don't you think it is a little expensive?
I think for the UK at least, the royal family is generally liked overall by the public (God knows why!) and they are viewed as attracting some money to the economy and pay taxes, so arguably don't cost very much, or perhaps anything at all. The current Queen also has a huge amount of actual power, although I'm not sure what would happen if she were to try and use it (for example to block a new law).
CGPGrey did a great video on the royal family https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
I'm sad not only that the only person to give a counterpoint to my original post seems to have abandoned the thread.... but also that the thread has shifted to be about the British royal family.... which has absolutely nothing to do with the 2 points this thread was originally about: the US, and perception of religion.
In Uruguay, the holidays for Easter are called "tourism week"*, and Christmas is called "family day"*. I like Uruguay.


* Or something.
@Disch: I would debate with you but I agree with you =p

I am curious as to what else there is to gay marriage that Duoas was talking about though...
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
ModShop wrote:
I would debate with you but I agree with you =p


To continue that thought a little, the Christian church is neither static or monolithic. The Church has always been changing and many are rethinking their beliefs regarding the homosexual community. It is wrong to assume that all Christians are against gay marriage.

It is also, wrong to believe that everyone in the Christian Church believes Christian beliefs and mores should be forced on the greater community by law. I belong to a faith that has a history of being persecuted, and as a result there is a strong belief in separation of state and religion which predates the founding of the US.

Last as a side-note denomination has been used wrong few times in this thread, and it is offensive to Churches that believe there is only one universal church and that they are it.

In regards to the shrinking of the Christian Church; I don't believe it. At one time in the US societal pressures forced people who did not believe to attend church...those days are over. What we are beginning to see now is the true size of the Christian Church it is good thing for us in the Church. False Christian have done nothing but hurt the faith and it is good to see them no longer identifying themselves as Christians.
Last edited on
ne555 wrote:
They may not refer themselves as `god-sent', but there are still some relationship with religion (by instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religious_role )

Yes, it's one of the ironies of religion and government: the US has explicit separation of church and state, and yet religion finds itself in the government and in schools and is very popular amongst the people, with many very devout believers. The UK has explicit marriage of church and state, yet to most people, religion is of little importance, exists politically in a purely ceremonial capacity (which I'm perfectly fine with), and the only touch of religion in schools is again ceremonial, schools have to have hymns and prayers but they don't force anyone to join in. I would probably prefer that religion didn't exist at all but I can live with it if it's kept out of government and schools.

I hope it is not some kind of religious tradition.

It is, the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England.

¿but don't you think it is a little expensive?

Well, it costs somewhere between £30 and £200 million depending on who you ask, but the British Tourism Agency claims it brings in over £500 million in tourism, so I would say it was worth the cost.

chwsks wrote:
To continue that thought a little, the Christian church is neither static or monolithic. The Church has always been changing and many are rethinking their beliefs regarding the homosexual community. It is wrong to assume that all Christians are against gay marriage.

It is also, wrong to believe that everyone in the Christian Church believes Christian beliefs and mores should be forced on the greater community by law. I belong to a faith that has a history of being persecuted, and as a result there is a strong belief in separation of state and religion which predates the founding of the US.

It's this "live and let live" mentality that I like. I think most atheists and agnostics would agree that there's nothing wrong with a religious person who understands that religion is a personal matter and not something to be imposed on other people. I don't even mind having people handing out flyers or trying to talk to me about Jesus and that, so long as they aren't pushy, which, in my experience, most are not.

and it is offensive to Churches that believe there is only one universal church and that they are it.

How can anyone believe that? I mean, I could understand believing their church is the only true Christian denomination, but that doesn't mean the thousands of other sects somehow don't exist, just that they're wrong (although, IMO, it takes a certain amount of arrogance to believe that of all the religions and all the churches, yours is the only correct one).
@chwsks

I agree with you that some churches have changed their beliefs at will. -_- Some support more liberal ideas and beliefs. Some try to conform the Bible as much as they can to the secularist view on things so they can "Fit in". That's actually the opposite of what the Bible teaches. - Romans 12:2

But, I think that religious people should not in any way, force a non-religionist/secularist to do anything pertaining to religion that they object to.

I also think that the government should be separate from all religion.

There is also this interesting point. Where do laws like "Do not murder"I don't know what the US law against murder actually looks like, but you get my point. come from? Secularists? No, religious people put that in place. I highly doubt that that will be abolished in the near future.

My $0.02

(I hope this wont turn into something like the last religious thread I participated in. :/ )
There is also this interesting point. Where do laws like "Do not murder"I don't know what the US law against murder actually looks like, but you get my point. come from? Secularists? No, religious people put that in place. I highly doubt that that will be abolished in the near future.


The national law against murder has been in place since the nation's conception. Several of our founding fathers were not particularly religious (prominent examples are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison)... though several of them were. I don't think anyone can state with any degree of certainty who actually put this law into place first.

Regardless, I don't think the law against murder exists because of religious beliefs... but rather because its act intrudes on another's rights (the right to live). It's folly to think that moral code must stem from religion.
Superdude wrote:
There is also this interesting point. Where do laws like "Do not murder" come from? Secularists? No, religious people put that in place.

Yeah, because religious people were in power. Or do you believe that, had humans never invented/found religion, they would never have created laws against murder? Do you believe that an entirely new and entirely secular society would not have any laws against murder? Of course it would; unbridled crime harms any society, religious or not. Do you think that the world was just a sort of free-for-all where everyone was killing everyone else until Moses told everyone to cut it out? Of course there was fighting and there was war, but within each group there were still laws. Even before society existed on a large scale, when people were living in tribes, there would still be laws. They'd have been specific to each tribe, but I'm sure "don't kill each other" would've been a pretty common one.

Laws may have come from the religious, but only because those in a position to make laws have historically been in that position due to religion. If religion had never existed, or if religions had never had any kind of power, secular people would still have made laws about things like murder and theft. The problem with religion being involved in lawmaking is that it leads to laws that don't make sense outside of the religion or even oppress non-believers.
Last edited on
Well, if nothing matters, then what's the point in living?

EDIT: And if we all are matter and only matter, why don't tree's have rights?

EDIT2: A question for chrisname: What does crime mean?
Last edited on
Well, if nothing matters, then what's the point in living?


Asking "what's the point of living?" is like asking "why do you like being happy?" The answer is obvious.

If your only joy from life comes from thoughts of you being part of a larger plan... or if you have to search for a deeper meaning rather than merely enjoying what's directly in front of you.... then IMO your life must be very depressing. I would strongly suggest you re-evaluate your life decisions.

EDIT: And if we all are matter and only matter, why don't tree's have rights?


Rights are a concept we give ourselves to function as a society. People have a right to live because if they didn't, our society would collapse.

That does not extend to trees because they are not directly a part of our society. But who knows... maybe trees give themselves rights similar to how people give themselves rights.
Last edited on
Pages: 12345