For the past decade or more, more conservative Christians have espoused the idea that many social problems could be solved if only society becomes more overtly religious in its behaviours.

This has happened on both sides of the Atlantic to varying degrees, but is most obvious in the USA.

It has manifested itself through ideas such as faith schools (in the UK); opposition to abortion and a desire to move to a wider "Culture of Life"; renewed assertions that creationism and/or intelligent design should be treated seriously as science; increased prison populations (with an implicit "eye for an eye" philosophy underpinning it).

We've also seen a upswing of the Puritan ideas of the deserving and undeserving poor, and that poverty is more or less one's own fault.

Before I go on, I don't want to debate the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of these ideas. I am more interested in how effective they have been in reducing behaviour that nearly everyone agrees is bad, and increasing behaviour generally held to be good.

Today, I read an American study (Cross National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.

The author compares levels of religious belief, observance and attendance (and acceptance of "non-religious" ideas like Darwinian evolution) with statistically recorded homicide rates, child and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teenage pregnancy, and life expectancy.

Each of these parameters are measured for the following nations:
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Great Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal, Austria, Spain, Italy, United States, Sweden, New Zealand

In other words, most mature, stable democracies are studied. By nature, in all except Japan, the mostly likely religion followed will be one or more denominations of Christianity, though other faiths are included where they exist



None of the preliminary arguments above is especially controversial.

But what are the findings?


No surprise there.



These last few points indicate that although Americans do not sleep around significantly more (or less) than other countries, they still have worse problems with STDs, higher abortion rates, and more teen pregnancies than comparable countries.

In summary, on every single one of these measures, except youth suicides, the statistics indicate that America is considerably different from all the other comparable nations - and always in what most people (religious or not) would say was the wrong direction.

Yet America comes out on top as the most religious - in belief, observant & attendance - and the most hostile to secular ideas like Darwinism.

The author doesn't particularly condemn America for this, or praise more secular nations. Nor is that my intention. He just observes that the underlying hypothesis of religious conservatives - that modern prosperous societies would be better off if more people followed religious techings - is refuted, not supported, by the available evidence.

Questions for debate:
What is going on here?

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value? (Given that the secular approach employed elsewhere appears to be delivering better results)

If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?

No.
What is "Religious morality"? Most Christians have never read the Bible. So how would they know? They simple use whatever they heard, or feel like as "their moral". Not forgetting, the "right" moral.

If you open some passages in the Bible (Job for example), you would realize that the Christian God is not anyone that prompt for any tolerance, love or any other such human trait. He (or she) is pure evil.

It is all about misconception about the chosen religion, which point me to your followup question;



Ah, but this is it you see. It has not failed. Looking at the "moral codecs" of Christianity (which most americans claim to be), you see intolerance, ignorance, child abuse and so forth, all this is "good" according to the Christian Bible. So i see no failure, rather, that decent human beings see something is wrong, and are not allowed to blaim the religion itself.

p.s Please dont force me to give you bible passages, if you wish to deny this, just open your bible and read it, you should know this already.



Personally i want religion to be removed totally, should not be accepted as it creates un-tolerant ignorant beings. Its a destructive force. When we created gods and similar (hundreds of thousands of years ago), we did so to explain certain things, why does the sun go up? Why does it thunder? THOR ofcourse. It was needed because of our lack of understanding. But now we do understand, so we dont need these excuses anymore.


Sweden, Norway, Iceland is considered the "best" places to be in the world. Good healthcare, live longest, supreme education, no poverty and so forth, and all these nations are very secular. Coincidence? I dont think so.

julian, interesting topic - I'll respond fully after I digest the full article. It seems to me that the USA could be an outlier for other reasons besides religiosity, and I find myself wondering whether they addressed the urban (secular) vs. the exurban (religious) divide in this country or just used aggregate country data. Seems at first glance to be the latter.


The article posted with the topic tells us how Christians in the USA attend church more often than any country in the world. News flash - IN CHURCH WE READ FROM THE BIBLE. EVERY WEEK!

This is interesting, but to debate we prefer arguments based on facts.

Thanks for you anti-American, anti-religion rant, EricStanze. Your position is duly noted.

What is going on here?

I find the conclusions highly suspect. The study seems to be focused on proving a result instead of analyzing data.

For example, it discounting the culture differences between Japan, the United States and Europe. Instead, it lumps the conclusions onto religiosity (or lack thereof).

Why did the author not explain the differences between Switzerland and Ireland when it comes to murder rates? The Swiss apparently have less belief in God (seems to be around 30%), but a higher murder rate per 100,000 (looks to be around 2 murders per 100,000). The Irish have 50% belief rates and about half the murders. In fact, among Europeans, the two countries with the highest belief rates (Ireland and Italy) have some of the lowest murder rates.

Even the basal data seems suspicious. For example, only 30% of the Swiss profess an "absolute faith in God" but almost 70% attend services several times a month? Although this can probably be explained away, it certainly seems suspect.

Referring to the United States as a "failure" (several times) does not lead credibility either. It leaves out the large immigration population of the US (both legal and illegal). It does not even attempt to explain other possible reasons for the data.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value?

What might be more beneficial is to compare the religious with the secular directly. The data presented cannot possibly give us enough information to answer this question.

Spirituality May Help People Live Longer



Church-goers live longer



If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

Poor data analysis leads to poor conclusions.

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?

Considering how weak the conclusions are (in my opinion)...

What is going on here?

Since this is a correlational study (with the use of surveys) I would say there are a quite a few explanations. First off, there could be a third variable which isn't being taken into account (I know most people on this board already guess that, but I'm putting down for the record since I got here first ). Why do drownings and ice-cream sales have a strong positive correlation in the summer? More people at the beach = more problems and more ice-cream being sold. This is the same idea as Amlord's illegal aliens idea. Also, there could be problems with the samples from the previous surveys and studies used to compile this one. I'm definitely not going through and reading those to find methodological problems or inconsistencies. Overall, I think the data just shows that the US is not nearly as great as we think it is. I don't think this report shows that the amount religiosity (or the lack thereof) causes a nation to be more or less developed (as the teachers always say Correlation does not prove causation). This report, to me, shows that of the developed nations, we are the most religious and least impressive on most accounts.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value? (Given that the secular approach employed elsewhere appears to be delivering better results)

If one believes that it should, then yes because of the reasons listed above. I however don't think we should base our policies on religious beliefs or ideas, unless those ideas happen to coincide with other non-secular moral ideals (ie. murder is universally accepted as illegal and should be, but not because it's one of the commandments).

If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

We're just an inefficient and hypocritical nation. Although I would be interested in the number of people who are "religious" in the US versus the number in other countries. This goes back to the sampling problems which I mention may throw off the numbers. If Spain has only 2% say they're religious and most of those 2% are surveyed then it could seem like a very religious country when in fact 98% aren't religious.

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?

The US should realize where it stands in the world and stop kidding ourselves. Programs need to be revamped and new ideas about education and health care need to be addressed, stat. These are obviously huge problems which are complex, but being the best gosh-darn country ever in the history of ever I'd think we could get a few good people together and solve these problems.


-------

Here's what I draw from the results:

Figure 2 (Religiosity vs. Homicides)

The US has the highest religiosity and homicide rate, but who is committing the Homicides? This insinuates that the more we believe in god the more we kill people. Shouldn't we look at the number of Homicides committed by atheists vs church-goers? Maybe we should look at who believes strongly in the 2nd amendment and violence?

Figure 4 (Rel. vs. Infant Mortality)

I don't know here, but I don't think being religious has anything to do with infant mortality. I suppose other countries have better health care systems and we're more religious; unless I'm missing something. If anyone could explain this that would be good.

Figure 5 (Rel. vs. Life Expectancy)

According to the studies Amlord presented (more church = longer life, still a correlation though) this goes against what is presented in the Journal of Religion and Science. Which means one of the two is wrong.

Figure 6 (Rel. vs. Gonorrhea)

Again, who has the gonorrhea is the question. If it's everyone, then that's a strike against religiosity, if it's mostly the non-religious, that's a plus.

Figure 8 (Rel. vs. Abortion)

Same problem as before. Also, if someone has two abortions how is that counted?

Figure 9 (Rel. vs Teen Births/Pregnancies)

Same problem.


I think what this all comes down to is education. I wouldn't be surprised if the countries ahead of us in these categories had better education in terms of many of these areas (ie. sex ed and how to live healthy). It probably doesn't help that the US just dropped again in the UNICEF education rankings.

I agree, that was a bit of a rant. If you had read the entire study you would have found that certain regions of the U.S. closely mirror attitudes and other statistics found in Europe...




I think the authors of the study answered that question before you asked it.



Their intent was to answer no questions at all according to their own procedural outline. Instead, they intended to show statistical anomalies and to raise questions that need to be answered. No answer can be had using the profuse yet generic data they had.

Here is the response, from the linked study, to the claim that theistic poeple live longer..It is Note #6 linked in the text:


The jury is still out on that one.

What is going on here?
I think that, as the authors suggest, the socio-political framework is too complex to be explained with this raw data. It appears to me that the only assertions they make are findings from other studies.


I don't think that this can be argued. We all know that we have ridiculously high rates of child poverty AND the highest per capita income and GDP in the world. We are grossly inefficient at turning wealth into social well-being.
The authors cited one study saying that "There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002)"

This is the most damning evidence of the type that Amlord would like to see (as would I). It is a regional comparison of religiousity and social dysfunction but, once again, it is only a citation from another study, not information they are gleaning from their own numbers.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value?
When I look at the panorama of religious behaviors, beliefs and modes of worship practiced in this country alone I realize that there are as many ways to be religious as there are to be irreligious. There are snake dancers, Jews for Jesus, televangelists, faith healers and the whole gamut of light to heavy versions of Christianity in this country. I would even include mainstream satanists into that list because they accept the same world view and religious hierarchy, they just root for the other side. I don't believe that one can pin one idea of "what is moral" on all Christians. Some believe in turning the other cheek while others believe in pre-emptively bombing those who might slap us. You can say the same for irreligious folk. In the end I don't believe the morality we all agree should be at the heart of our public policy is necessarily Christian at all.

If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?
I think that the problem in the U.S is the one hinted at by the authors of the study. The link between economics and religion is one that must be explored. We are a country of haves and have nots, with a sprinkling of will-have-one-days trying to break into the top 2%. When you have no control over the material world around you it is tempting to rely upon spiritual comforts. This was the teaching of the Church in the Dark Ages when feudal lords controled the bodies, clergy controlled the coffers and serfs were told to be happy with what they get in the afterlife.
I think that the U.S. is just another manifestation of the same concept.

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?
Stop corporate handouts. Stop frivolous, moralistic law-making so we can be free NOW and not once we die. Basically make hard work actually worth it....

Well no wonder the authors focused on STDs they are from Baltimore! One of Baltimore's claims to fame is some mutant strain of gonorrhea. We are all so proud

Also I just wanted it noted that as an atheist myself I don't share the same hostility or lack of respect often exhibited by others sharing my lack of religious beliefs. I just wanted it known that atheism is not synonymous with hatred.

I would imagine the most important question to be asked here is in the less "religious" countries isn't the general social moral system in fact being implemented by the government and it's policies? As in views on education, poverty, health, sex, etc. ? And in contrast aren't these morals, that most in America share (Christian), not being implemented by the government? Isn't that really what religious people of America who believe prayer and faith is the answer want? More influence and control on government policy?

It seems a bit dishonest to claim that faith has had no relevance on the American government system and that this is somehow a failure when separation of church and state is such a prominent concept and widely still in practice in America. I thought that was kind of the point of our current system...for it to have a lack of influence.

Failure? ...ha! Seems like we are succeeding. Yay for us.

Very dangerous waters here; proceed with caution.

1. What is going on here?

I can only offer my own perceptions, which may be utterly worthless.

It seems to me that the United States is unusual among the other nations of the "free world" in many ways. One of these ways is the fact that Christianity is so strong here. In particular, conservative/fundamentalist Protestantism is very strong here, and seems to be quite rare in other nations.

Another unusual thing is the degree to which Americans stress the independence of the individual, in ways which are (in my opinion) both positive and negative. To an extent which would seem strange in many other nations, you sink or swim on your own. The Libertarian Party and the philosophy of Ayn Rand, for example, have many followers in the USA, and I believe that both would be considered quite unusual in most other nations.

Are these two peculiarities related? Not directly. However, it cannot be denied that there is a part of American Christianity which has deliberately associated itself with strongly conservative political beliefs, and which has more than a little influence on the American government. In my opinion, this influence has done more harm than good. I think this answers your last three questions.

Make no mistake; religious faith has done wonderful good in the world, and has turned ordinary people into saints. It has also sometimes turned them into monsters.

The conservative political party in America to generalize for simplicity in my post concerns itself with the wants and or desires of the Christian right in America for the same reason its now referenced as the Christian right in America. Political groups are made up of people of like minds that support certain perceptions. I would find it a bit odd of not unnatural for an agnostic or atheist to receive many votes from the bible belt. In democracy I would feel the obtaining votes from the masses, even under an electoral system would be the designated way to gain power in the political landscape. So basically, I would suggest its people of a particular religion in a certain demographic running for political positions to express the message or way of life those particular people that enabled that individual via democracy to do.

I furthermore feel that its somewhat an abuse of power to maybe try to make faith based a way of life, or the absolute habitat for homo sapiens to conduct life, more so with the broad range of perceptions you can find in America on just about anything, or reality in general. I guess that opinion like so many other things lacks any ability to reach some empirical truth on and you just have people generally doing what they do, because they know they are right and it’s the right thing to do, much like Hitler knew what needed to be done… Extremism I feel is just another term for fascism and or tyranny.

Statistics that attempt to quantify social thought are not always to be trusted, more so when you cannot find what questions and or methods and data used to compile such a poll. Being an agnostic that follows science, I try not engage in such debates most the time, but I do feel the pressure of religious power shaping America at this point in time more so then I can remember really in my life. So I guess that is my motivation for adding my opinion here.

I don’t feel as if religion fails in its attempts to influence via government. Western religions in America never cease to spread its message. Creation or intelligent design is another good example of the church being bent on penetrability issues in the modern landscape of thought or perception. Being basically it’s a mask to explain genesis and was intelligently designed in the south and Christian science universities. It just goes in cycles, or is basically just always waiting to get out on the populous at large. I don’t really know what system is being used to judge its relative success or failure at this point.

Public policy just needs to reference history and the evolution of our society, constitution and general way of life. Maybe just more on freedom, then again every one always seems to know what they are doing.

What is going on here?

The attempts to legislate according to moral prohibitions is running up against the influence of mass media and corporate mass marketing of goods and services to the public. The culture that is depicted by television and commercials is one of having to have everything now; the necessity of time to work toward gratification and self-fulfillment is denied.

The result is a feeling of emptiness that people try to fill with "stuff" and relationships with other people whom they perceive will help them feel better about themselves. This places too much demand on personal relationships and, when happiness or contentment is not achieved, the person moves on to try another relationship, or decides that love doesn't exist and tries to content him/herself with shallow, physical involvement with more than one partner.

The determination to work things out with one life partner does not appear to be valued except in religious establishments. It is not a popular notion on television. And if this value is not promoted by the parents of a child, the child doesn't learn the value, either.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value? (Given that the secular approach employed elsewhere appears to be delivering better results)

It has value for some people, but apparently not the majority. As whyshouldi already stated (Welcome to AD, btw!):


If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

It seems to me that it is like getting a new gizmo in the mail. You have to put it together to use it, and the instruction booklet has been shipped with the parts, but if you don't read the instructions, your chances of putting it together and getting it to work are significantly reduced. "When all else fails, read the instructions."

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?

Unless there is a specific policy that we are referring to that I can address, I suggest that changing public policy might not be the best idea. For instance, decriminalizing suicide did not mean that fewer suicides took place, but that those surviving the persons who took their own lives were freed from the stigma of being related to a criminal. Until the reasons for a person wanting to die are addressed, the problem of suicide continues.

All the wise men or women in the world and all of their writings and pronouncements do not mean one iota to a person who is not willing to listen to or read the information. Likewise, all the moral legislation in the world only works for those who are willing to follow it.

What is going on here?

See below.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value? (Given that the secular approach employed elsewhere appears to be delivering better results)

People have tried this for centuries. Its just completely faulty. The government should govern finances and defense and leave morality to the private sector, churches and families. The Republicans, or conservatives continually make the mistake of (trying to) legislate morality which will always be their mistake because they just are very far behind in this aspect and the public does not want them to do it. We want from them fiscal responsibility and less intrusion. Remember, smaller government as the principle the country was founded on? That was their sell and thats what we liked, but they always just go too far and start meddling in our personal lives which will always be their mistake.

If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?

Spiritual teachings are only as good as the capacity for people to fully understand them, and of course , they have to be taught.

In the US we have so many societal situations at work that make it very difficult to get on a really spiritual plane. Perhaps if we were not a superpower, perhaps if we had health care or a safety net and less world worries we could be a more benevolent nation and a less selfish and self involved nation. If we had time to reflect we might.

Right now we have most churches in the US playing and selling politics, not spirituality. We are still a young nation and at war most of the time. It creates a different mindset than other nations that dont deal with this everyday.

We have many specifics, like being a melting pot, brutally capitalistic which means our youth have a constant onslaught of a material machine out to undermine any sense of goodness and make them buy whatever is being sold, mostly sex.
Its an all day struggle to give your kids a work ethic, sense of values and self worth.

Our god is usually a god of convenience. We call on 'him' to help us only in times of need, or to relieve our weekly guilt only to go out and do the same thing next week- other than that we little or no use for 'him', much like most other people in the world.
The difference is- we are so scared. The poor scare us because they might take something of what we have hard earned and any day we ourselves may be left destitute. We are scared of terrorists, the flu, layoffs, lack of hundreds of insurance policies, investments, getting sick and old age, crime, the lazy, the crazy, and foreign invaders. So our God only blesses the blessed and the rest can shove off and get a damn job because god is not on their side and they are on their own. Its very Judaiic in history. Only Jesus said, ' Blessed are the poor', that was totally contrary to Judaiic thought.

This translates to defensive righteousness- and therefore- more wars. Because when people are afraid they buy into all kinds of reasons to make war, and that leaves no time for anything but a lot of preaching without a lot of depth of the spiritual nature of life, just a bunch of running around like chickens from one threat to another.

So we do suffer somewhat from being a lot of people in churches and not a lot of time, either to see our children grow up well, nor breathe clean air or eat good food or attend to a future of hope for our kids beyond ' PRODUCTIVITY'. The bottom line.

The two things are not really spiritually compatible, hence, an angry, scared nation of church going moralists.

My first question to you is, what church are you going to?. Churches in America aren't preaching convenience, political agendas (where as they are preaching moral ones, which many liberals confuse), and don't abandon the poor or otherwise needy.

Consider the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and the massive outpouring from religious groups nationwide. Christianity in America isn't necessarily what the media portrays, and unless you spend time investigating personally, you're likely to never understand it. CS Lewis said it best, when asked what the difference between Christianity and other religions was, he said "Grace". A large portion of Church proceeds in Christian religions go specifically to funding need-based programs. (What do you think happened to the poor before welfare??? )

A young nation at war most of the time? How do we compare historically with other industrialized nations in reference to war? This could be a completely different thread, but I would venture to ask you why the US is employed in a military fashion, and what percentage of our ventures are begun at the request of other nations? (I'll help you... the percentage is very high) The United States Military has been drugn into the vast majority of its conflicts at the behest of allies involved or direct attack.

This data is a few years old, but pertinent none the less. According to this site, 77% of American adults identify themselves as Christians. This is a vast majority. Why else wouldn't our government identify with the majority of voters? Why else would it have been an issue in the last election? (i.e. Mr. Kerry making is a point to discuss his catholicism as if it were a badge?)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

What's the bottom line? Politics, like it or not, is a reflection of the people. Politicians are professional salesmen of ideas. Basically, those whom seem to align themselves the most with the voting constituency get elected, am I right? (rhetorical question...)

If religion is more of a part of American politics, it's probably because it's important to those who vote that the President/Senator/Governor, etc be a religious person. That's it in a nutshell... It's a demand based market, regardless of whether you're selling cars or politics... what the people want is what sells the most.

Quite so, and quite right. The majority of America is Christian, and appears to approve of government policies that align with their Christianity (e.g. absinence-based programmes in combating underage pregnancy & STIs)

However, the links I provided in my opening post, even if they don't indicate these policies are downright counterproductive, at least bring their effectiveness into question.

So, is government supposed to do what the people want, even if it doesn't work? Even if it actually makes the problems it is supposed to fix worse?

(This is a very roundabout way of asking you to debate the questions in the thread )

Well, well. Maybe this is a truly American idea, but the government isn't really supposed to intervene in free-will.

The truth is that government regulation cannot stop things that you might've used to fuel your argument (such as STD infection rates, which I'm not sure how easy it would be to make a truly objective argument about that... as I'm sure there is a largely unreported infection populus).

If Americans are more likely to use drugs, steal cars, or sleep around, it has little do to with Christianity in its form presented in US Politics. The US political conservative constituency generally employs its religion in matters such as abortion or same-sex marriage. Frankly, these have little do to with your posted statistics.

I believe that many Americans associate themselves with Christianity, but few actually practice the teachings of Jesus (or even make an attempt). Capitalism and the fact that "quick and easy" have replaced "hard-earned and deserved" in US society is a thread in itself. Does Japan have fewer STD's or teen-pregnancies? I'm sure they do... but it has nothing to do w/ Japanese government, but more to do with societal acceptability... which is another thread all in itself.

What is going on here?

As the subtitle of this reports states, it is a "First Look". In other words, it is not intended to draw conclusions but is rather an attempt to open a discussion on the possibility that religion (and Christianity in particular) is detrimental to society.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value? (Given that the secular approach employed elsewhere appears to be delivering better results)

In other words, should religious people be allowed to vote and participate in the political process? Yes.

If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

Again, the above report finds no such conclusion. It only makes a quick top-down observation.

How, if at all, should public policy change in the light of this study?

None. Lumping every Christian denomination together and then pouncing on a perceived imperfection is not cause to censure all religionists everywhere.

You've entirely missed the point. 'Christian Morality' is neither to be feared or politicized. That there is a deep yearning to return to 'Christian Morality' is a deep desire to return to the basics of morality. Are Americans so blind that they miss the deep selfishness that has possessed America? How many Americans sided with the majority and decided tos end America to war in Iraq? How many of these Americans can now say that they would stand and fight beside the men and women they have committed to battle? Of those that smuggly sit back and say, "I told you so!" and desire our immediate pull out for Iraq (for the boys no doubt), how many give one rats whit about the chaos that will engulf Iraq upon our withdrawal?

Politics you say? Or is it a question of morality? Were we modern Crusaders bent of freeing an oppressed people? Were we butchers bent on conquest? By what standard do we judge?

That is where morality of any blend comes into play. Christians, despite their many failings do posses a public code by which they swear by. Often, those outside the code find fault with those who fail to meet the code, and condemn the entire system based on the failings. To these people, I say you are blind. To ignore success and focus so singlemindedly on failure is a character fault that lie squarely upon your shoulders, for, as is always the case, what code do you swear by? What standard do you uphold and seek to achieve? Are you strong to not set goals? To not strive to better yourself?

Most Americans are, at heart, a moral people. The morality that America subscribes to is found in the Bible, it is found in the Koran, it is found in the Torah, but mostly it is found in common sense. Are we really supposed to believe the pathetic proclamation that, "most Christians have never read the Bible," with the unsaid understanding that those who are not Christian have read the bible? That to side with one side is ignorance and the other light? Exactly what does the author think happens in church around the country every Sunday?

Therein lies the point. America has grown too quick to find fault, too quick to confront, too quick to turn our backs, too quick to strike out at anyone who disagrees. In doing so we have lost what made America that greatest Nation on Earth: our code.

I recommend that everyone who thinks 'Christian Morality' is some farce or force to be denied to pick up and read the Constitution. Read the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. therein lies our code. Therein lies our honor. Therein lies the standard by which we are judged, for therein are the standards that America has set for itself.

Is this to be feared or embraced?

I'm struggling with some of the points you raise, greekee.



First of all, I have to point out that there are ethical systems which are not based on theistic worldviews. Often these systems agree with ethical systems based on theistic worldviews; sometimes they do not. I deny that the "basics of morality" must be based on theism (although they certainly can be.) I believe there is general agreement that one should try to avoid harming people when possible, among both theists and non-theists.

Secondly, I must say that there are some aspects of the ethical systems of some American Christians (certainly not all) which I do, indeed, fear. This does not in any way take away from the many good things done in the name of Christianity. As one example, I strongly oppose the notion, advanced by some Christians on the basis of faith, that same-sex relationships are in any way less ethical than opposite-sex relationships. On this, and other some other issues, I do indeed fear that particular segment of Christianity which can accurately be called the Religious Right.

Thirdly, I don't see how it is possible to avoid politicizing one's ethical beliefs, no matter what their source may be. You won't catch me saying that you can't "legislate morality." There is nothing else you can legislate. We have traffic laws because we agree that it is bad for people to be harmed in automobile accidents. I don't oppose Focus on the Family for getting involved in politics; I oppose them because their political beliefs are anathema to me.



You seem to be implying that non-theists cannot have a moral code; that we do not set goals; that we do not attempt to better ourselves. This is simply not true. Our codes and our goals and our attempts may not always be exactly the same as yours (although they often are), but they exist.



It has been pointed out many times that these documents have nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with Christianity. They are certainly not anti-Christian in any way, but they are also not pro-Christian.

I just think its odd to say if you don’t grow up Christian or with a morality they deem acceptable you cant learn to love someone or have a lasting relationship, what an ignorant thing to say.

On the topic of secular humanism, heck, I wish America practiced that, and voted for the natural law party while at it, I guess I should just hate liberty because they don’t at large.

You know, I just don’t agree with many things, so I guess they are just wrong and flawed, its easier that way, saves on energy usage, that way I don’t have to go stand in the sun that much.

I realize I am most likely going to get a warning for this, but for some of the things I have heard in this topic I would have already handed out warnings.

But it does draw at least one conclusion. (It's in the report, under the heading "Conclusion")


You're right in that the author does not claim a causal relationship between increased religiosity and decreased levels of social effectiveness - indeed, he asks whether increased religiosity causes or is caused by the social context. However, there is no denying that there is some kind of correlation - the discussion he wants to open is around causes & effects.


No, it's more substantial than that. He says there is a correlation, he just doesn't know what the nature of the relationship is, and whether one causes the other.

But that's what I am asking here. What do you think is the nature of the relationship between religion and the relative failure of US society to perform in these areas? Is it that the relative failure causes higher religious observance? Is it that the relgion cuases the social "failure"? Or is it entirely coincidental (in which case, what DOES cause the social "failure", and is it indeed "failure" at all).



Your other wording of my question changes its meaning entirely. How about answering my question? Sure, religious people should vote and participate, but should they leave their faith at the door of the polling booth? Should they be more interested in what works than what their faith tells them (if the two differ)?


Actually, it is you that has missed the point. I haven't mentioned Iraq.

America IS more religious than the comparable countries mentioned in this survey. And most of the public policy decisions - that have an overtly moral dimension - are framed, in America, to reflect (conservative) Christian points of view, particularly under the current administration. Yet, under the parameters considered in the survey (child mortality, abortion, rates of STIs, and so on) America does much worse than comparable countries that use a more secular legislative approach.

For myself, I am not so sure that Christianity or religion generally is the bad moral compass for legislation. Spain ranks quite highly for religiosity, yet they have been one of the pioneers on gay marriage (for example). The difference is, European Christianity is (for the most part) liberal in character, not conservative, certainly when compared to American Christianity.

In my opinion, the problem with the moral agenda in the USA is not its Christianity as such, but it's conservatism. It's too much Old Testament sanctimony and Pauline prejudice, and not enough Christian love thy neighbour as thyself, not casting first stones, rich men going to heaven like camels passing through a needle's eye, etc.

(Here's hoping all the quotes work ok and I don't have to spend the next 15 minutes editing them)
Yippee! Right first time!

What is going on here?

I don't think much of anything is going on here. To make any reasonable association between religion and social trends we would have to do a much more indepth analysis, which would include recent historical examples as well as current ones. Were US social trends so dismal with respect to Europe in the 50s, for example? We were a much more religious country then, yet most of the social marks in which we "fail" by comparison on that study were exponentially better at that time. For that matter, were such "social trends" in Europe dismal before the (relatively) newfound secularity?

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value? (Given that the secular approach employed elsewhere appears to be delivering better results)

I think it does, yes. Maybe another way of looking at this is the underlying reason certain areas turn to religion (the south, for example). Ever consider that they might be the effect rather than the cause? Religion is a form of psychotherapy. It provides comfort and affords those enduring hardship some explanation of the 'why', as science only offers the 'how'.

If so, how do you account for its relative failure in the US, where it already carries the most weight?

Again, there is no historical perspective on this. There is likely a laundry list of reasons why homicides are higher here, for example, and I don't think religion plays much of a factor at all. Were homicides and unmarried pregnancy rates so high when we had school prayer? If one is to attempt to support a causal relationship that is a pretty fundamental question that needs to be answered. If religion is the problem, why on earth would our social trends become more and more dismal as our society moves away from it?

Some religious circles believe that most of our societal problems would be cured if only we start praying in school again, because back when we did things (social trends in crime and illegitimacy for example) were better. Do you agree that would be effective? If not, what is the difference between that and the reasoning given in this paper (essentially prayer is the cause...take it out and things are better)?

What is going on here?
I feel it’s a new tactic overall, derived in order to gain support for using the government as a means to force religion on the public at large via law by making up scenarios. The proof in humanities dealings with religion point out that regardless of many things at the end of the day a person is still human, thus if you look at it from a point of view such as mine, taking into account sexual abuse by preachers as one example, it does not really matter what you say you are, you are still human. it’s a scare tactic, nothing more, the same principle in which terrorism uses to gain success.

Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value?
Would it be the same if we were to say the religious policy should be Buddhist, I think at that one point you would find outrage by the majority of Christians attempting such. They don’t want religious freedom, they just want everyone to be Christian and will do everything possible to save people from themselves and “freewill“. The value placed on such a movement is only understood by those with like minds and ambitions, which is not every American at this current time.

Taking into account that Christianity has had influence on the western world for 2000 years and at one point even with the supreme government and law of such in many occasions, according to Christians these points in time should have been a paradise relatively speaking, well the truth on that part of history fails to be a paradise and is rather dark and morbid in my opinion. I am not saying Christianity fails to do much good in the world giving its history, but for what they said, when it was a supreme entity in law and order or just common life, the history of those times should reflect something that they just don’t.

Any ideas that they deem not fit they reject. For example, Darwinism, I think by now that a majority of people curious about evolution would have evolved past Darwin in terms of its understanding, being a mountain of data beyond his observations exist, but I guess that could just be the conservative side of things again. I think it’s a simple mechanism in Extreme Christian positions that humanity will simply die out if they don’t follow the good book, and that I would have to say ultimately is a fallacy on behalf of Christians, and would most likely be counter productive to understanding and truth overall.

Requiring someone to leave their conscience at the door of the voting booth would create a hollow vote and a shadow of a democracy. Let's be real, this restriction you are asking about is not going to happen unless the religionist demographic is barred from the voting booth altogether.


whyshouldi, can you please back up your claim that Christians do not want religious freedom?


I somewhat agree with you here. But it's in the sense that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether we are talking religious government or secular government, it almost always applies equally. But I think it is a mistake to stereotype all Christians. If you bother to become familiar with the various Christian sects, you will find that not all share the views or behaviors you have accused Christians of having or doing.

I also worded it to reflect on the position of the Christians that feel the American government should reflect their particular ideology in order to have a healthy America, the opposite position in which you feel I was stating I would had to have said all Christians support this, which I did not say in my post. I could see how you could make that mistake though, and yes, I do have a bias against religion which most likely cripples me in many ways on such debates, I work to be better though.



It could be that its just the sense of power, or it could just be humans in social positions that make choices which then anyone in the system under them have to suffer onto. My point is simply that a system, or organized authority that represented purely Christian thought has already existed many times over to produce a result that lacks to support the current theory that social issues can be resolved by people simply being Christian or towing that line, nothing more. As far as being around Christians, well I was kicked out of Sunday school for asking questions and openly ridiculed in public school in the sixth grade for supporting evolution by some of the admin if you will. So it might not help my position of feeling that Christians are generally closed to anything non Christian, simply from reading evolution vs. creation debates can generate such feelings, more so giving the state of facts on things, its almost scary to think about, but I know that’s a voided topic here. Anyways, my position in regards to Christians in whole should be themed to reflect the Christians that support using the government to enforce Christian thought in public life, but I don’t know how to word for such really.

"The proof in humanities dealings with religion point out that regardless of many things at the end of the day a person is still human, thus if you look at it from a point of view such as mine, taking into account sexual abuse by preachers as one example"

Agh yes, the religion is a scare tactic and look how bad it really is therom. Exactly how many priests and ministers are there in the US? How many were found guilty of child molestation? Of course, Agnostics, being equally human, but dedicated to science, have never been caught abusing children?

But you see, there is a huge difference between Science and Religion. There is no ethical code or guiding moral compass in science. Science gave us the H-bomb, it has not told us what to do with it. Science gave us the gunpowder and helped turn war into the most destructive force on Earth (even without the H-bombs). Science is very valuable, but it is only a tool. It can give us answers to logical questions, it cannot answer philosophical ones.

Lets also be clear, Science is not as precise as many would have us believe. After all meteorology is a science, yet it cannot predict the weather three days in advance. Much less the severity of the seasons, yet we are supposed to be making climate models for decades and base political process of this science?

Additionally, even the mechanism for evolution has evolved significantly in the decade since I left college. Yet I am supposed to believe that Evolution is a scientific 'Theory' that is completely airtight? It is decidedly unscientific to treat Evolution as an established perfectly mapped process. Intelligent design? Must be a hoax. Humanity is just an accident of Evolution? That has as much proof as intelligent design. Why not teach both, and let people make up their own mind?

Therein lies the utility and limitations of science. Science cannot tell us how to run a society, though it can produce data to help us make an informed decision. It cannot answer the moral questions that our society faces. When Americans look around as see a gluttonous, selfish society, bent on instant gratification, there are many Americans, indeed people around the world, who think this is wrong. When people start searching for purpose and moral direction, they cannot find it in science. "I am made of quarks," simply does not help. They can begin to find an answer in a religion whose main tenants are Love and Forgiveness, two subjects you will never find in a science book. Is there anyone who will deny the power of these two subjects?

As Americans react to the culture of greed, and agnostics begin to tremble, please ask yourself what being agnostic has to offer? What moral code of conduct binds an agnostic? The Law? Is the Law morally clear about such things as abortion? Whatever is the law we simply follow? No disagreement? Or is our moral compass directed by the force of argumentation? One has reasoned that conduct is moral? So long as the one arguing with you is not a better debater and of questionable character. It is a moral argument the Bolsheviks took full advantage of.

What agnostic is standing and attempting to provide guidelines for humanity to live by? All I see from agnostics and atheists are those who find fault in others, particularly in those who have fallen short of their moral goals. Quite frankly, the US has enough people finding fault in our every action.

When it comes to the moral compass, it is not an individual search that begins from a point of zero. Too many in wonder, finding a Bible whose center is Love in Forgiveness is a great place to begin setting their moral compass. Why people fear this absolutely eludes me. What is wrong with this?

You must use the right tool for the right job. Using religion to discern the mating habits of monkeys would be silly. Using Science to find the purpose of one's life is equally as futile.

Philosophy can be anything cant it, I can say the universe is the product of pink elephants farting, and as long as I have faith in it I can treat such as truth then.

I will shy from the evolution stance save to agree with you, we are still learning a great deal about it.

So life cannot succeed without some form of an instruction manual, well hey, so whose instruction manual then.

I also never said agnostics were free from being human, nice of you to infer that though, I said religious folks are still human, that is all, not who was or was not human in the way you are portraying it. Plus I like agnostic because it’s the most favorable way to approach something that currently no truth exists on, being of faith or an atheist in that area currently requires a human to answer a question with no fact really, just because evolution occurred does not mean the absence of something higher in that regard, but I choose to only follow truth, not the other things that are not truth, thus why I like science, science works for truth. I guess truth is not important, and life should be nothing but how people feel about things, and in no way should understanding and truth even merit a glance of attention.

Who is to say science could not help people, if biology down to the individual could be explained you do not think that could help explain human behavior, should we not want to know how genetics or the human mind works, or why head injuries and drug use can morph human behavior, who knows how much that could help, maybe people would stop to think why they are mad instead of just acting on it, you never know how much it could help to understand things fully. It would be like looking at human life 4000 years ago and comparing it to now, you mind find a evolution of sorts, seems evolution applies to more then just the organic really.

Anyways, the topic is about Christian morality and its relation to public policy currently. I reject the idea and I general explained why, not that the whole religion should be scraped, followers put in giant pits and mowed down with automatic weapons or anything, just that I don’t agree that the American government should enforce or reflect any religious ideology is all. I also admitted I hold bias against religion, does not matter in form to me, better then what most can do I think. Anyways, people on their own could practice the faith of choice, should you have to be scientific because I used the government to make it the law, sounds kind of stupid in that light does it not?

Here are a few interesting quotes that shed light on the situation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. "
Thomas Jefferson

"Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love."
Thomas Jefferson

I write of Jefferson, because it was he who penned the Bill of Rights and gave us our separation of church and state that has been much maligined by both sides. It is his words and his intentions that have become the code by which America judges itself.

Saying that Christianity is attempting to supplant American morality is a bit of a misnomer. For what branch of Christianity would hold sway? It is true that many Christians have bonded together to achieve specific political objectives (quite successfully), but one of these objectives is not to foist their beliefs as the official morality of the US. There simply is not enough agreement in Christianity to do so. The coming together of like minded individuals to achieve specific political goals is a necessity in democracy. Atheists have long done so, why is it worrisome to see Christians do the same? For they are certainly far from defunct, nor does the current unrest in France bode well for entirely secular societies.

That being said, secularism is an established fact in the US. The idea of including a religious morality in government has long come and gone, and continues to go on. Every politician running for national office just happens to Christian of one branch or another. To deny that faith has power in America and in politics is to be blind to the obvious.

Yet most Americans are not blind fools to be lead about like lambs (no religious pun intended). Most of them believe as Thomas Jefferson did, that a search for truth is the most important thing. It is his beliefs that are now enshrined as the moral standard by which America has presented itself to the world and expects to be judged by. It is why he could say with great confidence:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

American morality is not linear. The 50's nuclear family gave rise to the freedom and individuality of the 60 and 70's, which in turn gave birth the gluttonous 80's and 90's. Now Americans are reacting to selfishness, and realizing and yearning for selflessness. From this feeling has grown the religious right. Are there any who deny that the religious right has amassed political power?

There really is nothing to fear in this rise, or in it's effectiveness. One must realize that this coalition exists around specific political targets. As has happened with those who disagree with them and have banded together to stop the implimentation of these polocies. The key is scope. Is there anyone who thinks that the religious right has designs of US Environmental Policy?

In certain areas politicized religion is terribly effective, in others it is useless. It is undeniably achieving many of its aims. Yet it comes back to using the right tool for the right job. Using religion to decide how to make highways more efficient would be an exercise in utter futility. Using science to tell us whether abortion is right or wrong is equally useless. Science can tell us what the procedure is and how often it is performed but not whether the procedure is moral. As America grapples with it's morality. it is only natural that religion will find itself influenctial in any debate. the Bible has exited for 2,000 years there must be a nugget ortwo worth something in its binders.

Philosophy offers insights to morality, but so does the truth of many religions. Individuals must come to terms with the truth and act accordingly. In a democracy, the majority will hold sway eventually. And example is the abortion debate. As the left has dismissed the Pro-Lifers as 'blinded by religion,' they themselves have found their support beginning to wane as the years progress. The reason? There is moral truth in religion, and those who have sturdied it and found that truth do not take kindly to being condescendingly dismissed. Does this mean that Christian morality is US politics is successful or unsuccessful? That depends entirely upon the political issue being debated, for it is both terribly effective and non-existant at the same time.

For America, it is neither religion nor outright secularism that dominates our morality. The truth of American morality is that we have inherited the moral code of a truth seeker. For that we certainly have Providence to thank for our good fortune. It remains the most effective system on Earth.

What is going on here? Does the conservative religious hypothesis that public policy should reflect religious morality still have value?

The question comes down to 'WHOS' religious morality in an America as diverse as ours? We are an experiment and we are NOT wholly Christian and even the Christians cant agree!


False. Look it up, I cant be bothered to research for you this idiocy, I mean misconception.


Civilized writing has existed for 8,000 years beginning in Sumaria, which is now Iraq. GOD was WOMAN all over the world and revered above all as Creatrix until man supplanted MAN as creator with the Bronze Age when weapons were created from metal and allowed for widespread conquest wars. The male God and his son have ONLY existed for about 2,000 years through pasting new dieties over old dieties, putting churches over old sacred sites and co-opting pagan holidays for Christian holidays. The BIBLE is a historical record, much myth, because you cant really believe anyone lived in the body of a whale for years. Its storytelling to teach spiritual lessons and history.
So new baloney replaced old baloney. Once there were many (gods and godesses) now there is one, shared by many, all thinking they are right.




I must disagree with extreme predjudice. I am NOT in agreement with this rise, nor its impositions, nor any of its political implications. I see the Founders as giving us freedom FROM exactly the sort of thing you presuppose, that everyone should live by one/your morality, and why yours? Who are you, or any preacher? Are you a genius, an oracle, a medium, a monk? Are any of your friends, or anyone who is trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives? On what resume? What divine intervention?
Hmmn, lets consider past divine interventions: The Aztecs and Incas, the Egyptians, the Greeks, Romans, The Spanish Inquisition, Henry the 8th and the Church of England.
I believe by everything the Founders wrote they were trying to relieve us from the tyranny of this very thought process.
I understand that you believe your religion should control, patronize and be posessed as the morality of all people, however I was born here too and I do not agree. I think the Constitution backs me up, as well as you must, except I am not even asking you to take on my beliefs, nor live by them. I only ask for a country that MY FOUNDERS gave me where you can live by your beliefs and I by mine, as individuals, and I believe that is called ORIGINAL INTENT.

Its not that hard if you dont over step the boundries from you to me.

Well, as much as I believe that the constitution does protect your ability to believe what you'd like (or not), how does that relate to the debate at hand? We're not exactly arguing the intent or content of the constiution, but moreover whether the morality of the "conservative-right" still have value?

Are you saying that the teachings of Christianity (as inflammatory as your remarks may be) are worthless? Are you even insinuating that our history is not riddled and/or still flush with Christianity being involved in our government?

Not quite. The morality may have value as an individual code to live one's own life by, but the central thrust of this thread is (or at least, this is what I wanted it to be when I started it) is whether that same moral code is helpful, neutral or counter-productive when imposed through public policy.

"the central thrust of this thread is (or at least, this is what I wanted it to be when I started it) is whether that same moral code is helpful, neutral or counter-productive when imposed through public policy."

That is exactly the point. You are presupposing that the religious right is attempting to force itself into all aspects of US politics. It isn't. You are presupposing that 'religion' in government must be expressed through some type of religious office. That simply is not the case.

The 'religion' in US government exists as a counter reaction to those who have been steadily attempting to push Christianity out of the American spot light. The religious right exists solely to protect the right of the expression of Christianity, and to push to assure that those who hold similar values are elected into our offices and courts. Is this bad? No. That is how America works.

Right here in this thread, you can see why it is necessary for the religious right to exist.

"So new baloney replaced old baloney. Once there were many (gods and godesses) now there is one, shared by many, all thinking they are right."

Without getting into the comparative similarities of the morality of all modern religions, the author of this thinks that the whorship of Baal, human sacrifice, and the whorship of leaders and disciples of a cruel God and Christianity are on par with one another. There is a reason that Christianity superseded and wiped these early religions from the face of the Earth.

It is the deliberate ignorance of such postings, the wholly unwarranted attacks, the leftist presentation of Christianity as unwarrantedly evil that has created the religious right and it's political agenda. As those who write things like the quote above seek to block Christian expression, so to do Christian now seek to assure themselves that their persecutors are not the ones who hold sway with the reins of power.

The vast majority if Americans are some type of Christian, and the majority of the rest hold some other type of religion. America is built upon tolerance and the accptence of all ideologies. The inability to discern a difference between the whorship of Baal and the whorship of Jesus does not sound like any sort of tolerance I have ever seen. It is certainly not the kind of statement I would find acceptable from one charged with making the tough calls of moral issues like abortion. And my vote, and those of my like minded peers, most certainly counts.

America, as a whole, remains firmly convicted to it's founding ideology. Many Americans, even those not Christian, can see great power and truth in the tenants of Love and Forgiveness. There is truth in selflessness and sacrifice for the benefit of others (what do you think our soldiers do?). What the religious right seeks to assure, is that men and women of like mind are the ones making the calls on those laws and policies that have a moral component are closer to their thought process then they are to those who make no distinction a religion of human sacrifice and one of selflessness.

I will stress again, there is no attempt to supplant the American system with a 'religious' one. There is no attempt to undermine America's secularism.

Again, and I must stress this, there is an attempt to ensure that policy makers hold values similar to the majority of Americans. There always has been, and there always will be. When the religious right loses touch with the pulse of the American majority, it will fail. We are a democracy, and public policy is expressed through the majority will of the people. If the religious right were attempting to block all forms of secularism, their influence would certainly be counter-productive. They are not.

The influence of the religious right is related almost solely to matters of policy that have a moral component. Depending on which side of the coin you fall on they are either productive or extremely counter-productive. Regardless, they are very effective.

Julian, you expose one of the problems with government, it is always in the business of imposing the morality of the majority on the minority, whether the majority is right or wrong. The one caveat (at least in the U.S.) is that the will of the majority cannot be unconstitutional, the one safeguard against self-imposed tyranny. You can see the merits of a small government, one in which your morality is not imposed on me, nor mine on yours.

The right of the political system in the U.S often has made it standard to complain of the left and its big government ways, and how gun laws are restrictive and against the constitution. I will not call this a hypocritical thing when you take into account that government and religion are to stay separate in terms of laws or the system of laws which make up a government for various reasons in the history of the western world and the attempts of liberty for humans in America.

The left never attempts to abolish religion, they will on the other hand because of voter base, attempt to cleave religion from becoming a force in the government. If the left of American politics attempted to say you cant be religious in your home or churches could not be built, or the many other facets of that faith freely expressing in our culture, I would say then the left is truly anti Christian or religious then, but its not. I feel moreover the left gets that label simply because they will not legislate if you will from any particular organized faith as the right will do rather often, so then they become anti religious because they don’t, and attempt to keep the separation of church and state healthy.

Individuals have there own system or code, or the same could be said of a family. At what point is it good enough to take something and enforce it on everyone. If 98% of America voted tomorrow to abolish money, should it just do that way… but we don’t have such perfect voting’s on such issues. Most issues have many shades of gray are not easily discerned in any single direction. For example, I think that Christianity has about 27,000 known denominations, that’s just that particular ideology, its not the other thousands of faiths a human can take and that you could find in America, and that is just faith, not how a individual perceives any particular faith they may take. So at that point how would you legislate that into law, should it just be core beliefs then that most can agree on.

Another aspect is if the faith or morality is so important, would Christians then reject if that faith was Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu? I don’t think it takes much thought to see the complexity of such and the pandora’s box it would open truly if the American government became a vehicle of single faith or morality, which in itself and of course looking over the variance you can find in human perception in ultimately a relative position to take in the first place.

Law should be taken as people feel about issues, but they must attempt to represent Americans, not just a sect of them, for if that becomes the standard, it’s a corruption of what the American government was made for in respects to the constitution. That is where I feel many think America is secular, and moreover I think it should be secular, because that does not favor any particular individual, seeks objectivity with issues and a middle ground. I still do not believe that America truly practices any form of secular thought, its mostly probably just fear on the part of politicians worrying about there jobs. I think this is easy to find if you really go read on secular humanism, versus just being secular, which again is not truly ever attained, or this would be a null issue to debate because people would have secular thought important to them on a moral level like it is to me.

History has documented many times where cultures simply fall apart at the seems because of regime like tyranny of the people, I don’t see why anyone would want to plunge back into that save for fanatic fervor of something that ultimately blinds judgment, and yes, to simply govern from one authority and impose or enforce such as the ultimate authority would be doing just that, being that stance is rejection of any form of variance to it.

This is why when you find extreme positions in the central node of authority because it fails to take into account more then its base of power. Clinton was a communist and W is a fascist you know? Its those kind of statements that come from people not being represented but having to still live with a system.

As far as I could care, I don’t want any more witch hunts, or persecution, or people being burned alive because they said the earth is not the center of the universe. Those were savage times, and even with Christian thought being the law in those times, they never came close to solving social woes, why would that change now, the only proof that truly exists is that it does not solve anything, and most the statements made towards it are usually made from emotion or care about something, I think the religion more so then the people truly.

Let's try to get this discussion on sturdy ground (and the same ground for everyone).

This is becoming a debate about religion and its legitimacy when it should not and cannot according to the rules!

Let's look at an example. I'll suggest teen pregnancy because it is the easiest to riff on for me. If you will it, by all means bring up another example from the study.

In areas where abstinence is preached (most of the country at one time or another) there is no clear data showing the benefit of abstinence programs.

There were allegations from a Congressional report that abstinence-only programs contained seriously flawed data, sexual stereotypes presented as science and other minsinformation.

So the best studies we have now show that abstinence-only programs are ineffective. The only positive results liely come from the fear created by the misinformation tactics about STD's and sex. There is no knowing (yet) the effect of this misinformation upon the kids when they reach maturity and adulthood.


A program with "Christian" morals would certainly not involve detailed and disconcerting information about sex, STD's, homosexuality and contraceptives.

Can it be argued that it is for the good of our nation that we shelter our children from these things? Mind you, this cannot be an argument about the moral good of our nation. Is there a measurable, causally connected net benefit for our society when we adopt this Christian moral teaching?

If not, why should we continue legislating it?

Well, following statistics and data already presented in this thread, a majority of America seems to subscribe to faith. Protestant and catholic being the largest of such. Holding this to be self evident, it would only make sense then that America should not hold any of the issues it has that Christians claim their religion if imposed by law via government would calm or erase.

On the contrary, it seems these problems may have more to them and are not so easily put down. Poverty for example is as old as dirt pretty much. Where such scarcity exists in terms of survival or just pure desire for more then the current situation affords you seem to find criminal elements. Pirates, barbarians, gangsters, thugs the list of terms for crime can go back in western culture alone for thousands of years. To do a case study on this with evidence in the form of links to other websites would be an awesome task that would take very long to yield and then debate on consume and understand, then debate on in a civil manner. I can make one point about such, do you think of the millions if not billions of crimes by humans that none of those people subscribed to faith, one form or the other? You could apply that question to anything, people whom get divorces, have abortions, or just any of the myriad of labeled “problems” American society faces, are all those people without faith? This of course is just one facet that can be applied to the whole debate, that would in itself plunge into so many other areas it would be impossible to stay on target with the thread.

Maybe as an above post inferred, that if a person takes a code, and gives up self for that code that could be a better person. Well, America already has a legal system that basically covers all the most gruesome acts a person can commit, celebrates liberty, freedom of choice and expression and so much more, why would that system fail. You can under the same banner then wonder why patriotism should be enforced, and that should then solve various social problems, following the line of logic as purposed in this thread to be debated on.

I still stick by my position as I have stated, in above posts overall. American government should not become a vehicle of any singular faith, such has never worked in the way some say it will, as in deletion of social woes, and for the most part it typically always erodes into a repressive regime that can be studied in history and currently today with some nations and people. Pus America as it stands is to diverse for such to express any fitness truly, or lasting peace, as again I feel history points out.

I guess more to the point, one should wonder if a better thread would be how should religion and the American government come to terms with one another, if we are to keep inline with the constitution, and personal liberty.

This would be fine, if it were not for the FACT that the people who "hold similar values" are expected by the conservative Christians pushing for their election/nomination to impos