Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[eppie]

Have you considered that increased religious freedom, over time, leads to declining religiosity? It seems abundantly clear looking at a world map coloured by religious belief that the freest countries are the least religious, and contrariwise, that the least free are the most religious.

Indeed, and in the Netherlands this 'having no problems with another mans religion' was of course partly caused by our economy. In our golden age capitalism grew because we wanted to do business with everybody, and everybody could come to use and do business. No very surprisingly this went hand in hand with great advances in science. Of course after (and before) that there came times with more religious pressure (invasions by the spanish, the french, the germans). In the 20th century we started with a funny thing called verzuiling or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation in english. All kinds of different groups that probably didn't like eachother that much were all having their own political parties, TV broadcast organisations, newspapers etc.
I heard stories from the 60s were youth from catholic villages would often fight with youth from the nexct protestant village.....nothing serious though.

A system were the leaders (elite) of all groups would normally cooperate to keep things together while the people would have their quarrels. I guess when the 60s came things changed because of the love and peace generation.

That seems overwhelmingly more likely than the implication you seem to be dancing around, which is that declining religiosity must be due to (or, more charitably, leads to) increased intolerance of religious freedom.

-Jester

Indeed, in Holland at least the wise people would always manage and make and keep Holland a prosperous country, but I think this is more despite of the religious people than because of them.
Now of course we have our problems with the Islamic pillar (although I am not sure which part is real problem and which part is populism from right wing politicians....it will be a mix of the two).
The people from countries like Morocco have never gone through a process like we went through in western europe.
All in all, and I say this again, I think religious groups don't have to worry about a thing, the atheists are the ones that see their freedom in danger. But this has been like this for hundreds of years so I don't forsee problems because of this.

[kandrathe]

I think more like 80 % considers themselves religious in Holland.

The statistic I saw for the Netherlands was that 40% would identify themselves with a religion, but only 20% attended regularly. Europe might be a special case, due to the mischief caused by the Protestant/Catholic upheavals. In the US, which was the destination for most of the exodus of those persecuted by either side, we have seen little decline in religiosity. ISKON - Religious Liberty in Western Europe was more the type of information I was seeking. They would certainly have a vested interest in religious liberty, as they are one of the more targeted groups for persecution.

For example; "The Belgian parliamentary commission on cults released its report on 28, April 1997. This document is even more extreme than the French report. It included a number of bizarre allegations against many groups including five mainline Catholic groups, among them: the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Quakers, the YWCA (but, for some reasons, not the YMCA), Hasidic Jews, and almost all Buddhists. It also proposes legislation making 'mind control' a crime."

[Jester]

The statistic I saw for the Netherlands was that 40% would identify themselves with a religion, but only 20% attended regularly. Europe might be a special case, due to the mischief caused by the Protestant/Catholic upheavals. In the US, which was the destination for most of the exodus of those persecuted by either side, we have seen little decline in religiosity. ISKON - Religious Liberty in Western Europe was more the type of information I was seeking. They would certainly have a vested interest in religious liberty, as they are one of the more targeted groups for persecution.

For example; "The Belgian parliamentary commission on cults released its report on 28, April 1997. This document is even more extreme than the French report. It included a number of bizarre allegations against many groups including five mainline Catholic groups, among them: the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Quakers, the YWCA (but, for some reasons, not the YMCA), Hasidic Jews, and almost all Buddhists. It also proposes legislation making 'mind control' a crime."

Much of the activity of anti-cult groups, and the research that underpins it, is very controversial. This includes the gentleman who wrote the above link, Massimo Introvigne. This is not as simple as mere freedom of religion, as many of these religious groups are or have been involved in illegal or abusive practices, hiding under the cloak of religious freedom. This includes ISKCON.

Societies strike different balances between the protection of individual rights to be free from unlawful abuses in the name of religion with the freedom to practice religion. This is not a simple issue. To a large extent, it depends on whose testimony you believe, that of apostates, or that of organizations. I don't think we have a simple, blanket way of sorting that kind of issue out.

-Jester

[eppie]

The statistic I saw for the Netherlands was that 40% would identify themselves with a religion, but only 20% attended regularly.

Indeed, wikipedia says you are right. What can I say, it always seemed a lot more.....no problems with their reiligious freedom, that is for sure.

[kandrathe]

Much of the activity of anti-cult groups, and the research that underpins it, is very controversial. This includes the gentleman who wrote the above link, Massimo Introvigne. This is not as simple as mere freedom of religion, as many of these religious groups are or have been involved in illegal or abusive practices, hiding under the cloak of religious freedom. This includes ISKCON.

Societies strike different balances between the protection of individual rights to be free from unlawful abuses in the name of religion with the freedom to practice religion. This is not a simple issue. To a large extent, it depends on whose testimony you believe, that of apostates, or that of organizations. I don't think we have a simple, blanket way of sorting that kind of issue out.

Sure, but "cult"is often used as a slur to belittle an otherwise valid belief system. Such as Mormonism, which while not main stream, is recognized as a valid religion in North America. In the USA at least, it seems that press ostracism often precludes state sponsored violence against these "cults".

[Jester]

Sure, but "cult"is often used as a slur to belittle an otherwise valid belief system. Such as Mormonism, which while not main stream, is recognized as a valid religion in North America. In the USA at least, it seems that press ostracism often precludes state sponsored violence against these "cults".

There is a balance to be struck. The Mormon church comes scarily close to cult behaviour, but what they do as a church is clearly protected. (What they do running Utah is rather another matter, and the boundary between church and state has never been a strong point for the Mormons.) If they are widely disliked, even in the press, I can only remind you that those are also protected freedoms.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

There is a balance to be struck. The Mormon church comes scarily close to cult behavior, but what they do as a church is clearly protected. (What they do running Utah is rather another matter, and the boundary between church and state has never been a strong point for the Mormons.) If they are widely disliked, even in the press, I can only remind you that those are also protected freedoms.

Of course, the press has freedom as well. It is only significant that in most places (esp. in the USA), a prelude to the violation of human rights is preceded with unfounded accusations, ostracism and a dehumanizing propaganda campaign. When something is considered to be less than human, we as a society have less issues with violating their rights (e.g. Japanese internment camps). The campaign seeks to mollify or influence public outrage, at least to question whether those attacked by the government didn't somehow deserve that retribution.

As, for Mormon's domination in Utah; They went there for sanctuary, and still comprise over 70% of the state population. It's a cultural fact that Utah is dominated by Mormons. One might say the same about progressive democrats and New York, or black politics and the District of Columbia.

So, to stay on track here, eppie might see religious freedom (since he is admittedly removed from it) while there exists quite a bit of government repression (as in France's cult watch) for religious minority groups. Europe's accepted mainstream religions have been cowed to a place of irrelevance within the culture due to their history of catastrophic commingling with government and politics. And, in some places in Europe, I'm sure that being openly Protestant, or openly Catholic might still have serious life consequences. Therefore, the safest choice might sometimes be "neither".

[Jester]

Often, the most vocal opponents of "cults" are mainstream religious believers. Nobody in the US is quite as gung-ho against the Mormon "cult" than evangelical Christians. At the very least, look to your oft-cited case of the FLDS compound in Texas; Texas is one of the most religious states in the Union, and not only did that not stop religious discrimination, it actively encouraged it. So, this is not a case of the irreligious ganging up on the religious (a fight we atheist/agnostic types would lose everywhere, except perhaps in Sweden), but rather a democratic state, comprised of both the religious and the irreligious, monitoring and in some cases ostracizing certain groups thought to be "extreme". The strongest groups driving this process are mainstream religions looking to defend their turf, not irreligious people looking to abolish religion.

I'm sure declaring yourself openly Protestant or Catholic in Europe does have serious life consequences, like any religious doctrine. It has consequences for your social network, your choice of community, your church attendance, your doctrinal beliefs, the education of your children, and who knows what else. In Canada, it even determines how your schoolboard taxes are spent. However, if your idea is that those consequences include threats to your safety, I'm afraid you have quite a case to prove, unless you're restricting your analysis to Northern Ireland.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Often, the most vocal opponents of "cults" are mainstream religious believers. Nobody in the US is quite as gung-ho against the Mormon "cult" than evangelical Christians. At the very least, look to your oft-cited case of the FLDS compound in Texas; Texas is one of the most religious states in the Union, and not only did that not stop religious discrimination, it actively encouraged it. So, this is not a case of the irreligious ganging up on the religious (a fight we atheist/agnostic types would lose everywhere, except perhaps in Sweden), but rather a democratic state, comprised of both the religious and the irreligious, monitoring and in some cases ostracizing certain groups thought to be "extreme". The strongest groups driving this process are mainstream religions looking to defend their turf, not irreligious people looking to abolish religion.

Yes, I was going to make a similar comment, but you summarized my thoughts on it. I wasn't sure about the "turf" in Europe (except Italy) however, which is why I withheld my opinion.

I'm sure declaring yourself openly Protestant or Catholic in Europe does have serious life consequences, like any religious doctrine. It has consequences for your social network, your choice of community, your church attendance, your doctrinal beliefs, the education of your children, and who knows what else. In Canada, it even determines how your school board taxes are spent. However, if your idea is that those consequences include threats to your safety, I'm afraid you have quite a case to prove, unless you're restricting your analysis to Northern Ireland.

Again, not having lived in Europe, I didn't want to portray it as sinister. I know from my visits, and even with my relatives there, most people are very uncomfortable with sharing their views. I perceive more a fear of either appearing backward themselves, or insulting the other person if they were for or against your beliefs. "Awkward" is the way I would put it, even with my closet European friends, speaking about religion is awkward. Much more so, than speaking about politics.

[eppie]

I'm sure declaring yourself openly Protestant or Catholic in Europe does have serious life consequences, like any religious doctrine. It has consequences for your social network, your choice of community, your church attendance, your doctrinal beliefs, the education of your children, and who knows what else. In Canada, it even determines how your schoolboard taxes are spent. However, if your idea is that those consequences include threats to your safety,

-Jester

The life consequences of declaring openly that you are a catrholic or protestants has far less consequences in western europe as has declaring you are an atheist in Poland, Spain or Italy. Even though many people just don't believe in god they will keep up the appearance.
Again, in my opinion most harm is done by the various religious groups instead of by atheists.

[Occhidiangela]

Did it occur to you that I was talking about the majority of *representatives*, or even *voters*, not the majority of the *population*? Or are you just so very eager to find something to nitpick so you can pick yet another fight with me?

('round and 'round we go... I ask you to stop insulting me, you keep insulting me... whee!)

-Jester

So you fall in to the trap, all so easily.

Among that thirty percent, or so, or evern forty percent whose boy is elected,

Be the boy Clinton, Reagan, W Bush, Obama, FDR, or whomever, to include Prodi et al in Europe, the ones who actually set the agenda

Your words, my friend

are a small set of active and committed people.

The rest are along for the ride.

Once again, the core truth of politics is that a minority sets the political agenda. Lenin, for example, was no idiot. He understood very well what political action required: a core group of people who'd have the gumption to bloody well pursue their aims, and either recruit or cast aside opposition.

It's how it works, and has for a long time.

What the hard working agenda setters need is a sales pitch that works well enough. They then sell their platform.

This even works within smaller groups, to include parties in office in halls of government.

Group dynamics, 101.

Jester, before you get all upset about being picked on, read the words you write through a lens other than your own belief in yourself.

Occhi

[Swiss Mercenary]

Well, eppie said they have had freedom of religion for hundreds of years. Yet, religion seems to be a dying social group. How are religious freedoms protected, and this would be pretty remarkable when they compromise about 1/5th of the population (a clear minority). I wonder how that 1/5th feel about how well their freedoms are protected.

You seem to be trying to correlate drop in church membership with... Something. Anything.

And, conversely, I also wonder how the 1/5th of America that declares itself as atheists must feel about how well their freedom from religion is being protected.

[kandrathe]

You seem to be trying to correlate drop in church membership with... Something. Anything.

Bad PR. Over meddling by the ruling class. Focus on aspects which are irrelevant to faith. Intellectualism. Many many things contribute to peoples apathy.

And, conversely, I also wonder how the 1/5th of America that declares itself as atheists must feel about how well their freedom from religion is being protected.

There is no protection from religion. There is protection from the government imposing religion upon people(establishment clause), but there is no stated protection from there being religion in civil society. In fact, the opposite (free exercise clause) exists where people are free to express their religious views without government intrusion. Do you feel the government interferes with atheism?

[Jester]

The party with the majority of representatives, who recieved both the plurality and the majority of the votes cast, gets to set the agenda for the government. Obviously, there is even a smaller group who sets the agenda for the parties, and an even smaller group who gets their way, and an even smaller group yet who really came up with the ideas. Want to splice it even further? Do I have to start talking about specifically which organs are responsible for "setting the agenda"?

If that's what you're arguing, that there are not 160 million professional policymakers in America, then all I can say is that this is the least profound truth I've heard in a long time.

My point, quite obviously, was about how much the Democrats, having won majorities in the Congress, Senate and the Presidency, get to set the agenda relative to the Republicans, and what kind of compromises are and are not appropriate given the results of the elections.

Nothing you've said seems to have any traction on that point, and instead you've chosen to quibble pointlessly over what kind of majority, exactly, I'm talking about, when that point is perfectly obvious given even a tiny drop of philosophical charity. However, since you haven't been willing to grant me any measure of charity for years now, I'm not hopeful you're going to start now. I expect nothing but insults and fruitless nitpicking.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

My point, quite obviously, was about how much the Democrats, having won majorities in the Congress, Senate and the Presidency, get to set the agenda relative to the Republicans, and what kind of compromises are and are not appropriate given the results of the elections.

Just to stick my nose in a bit. I would hope that it is the People, through their representatives whether they be D's or R's that set the agenda. I still write to my representatives hoping to add my influence to their decisions, even though I'm technically neither a D or an R. I guess what I see in Washington by both the D's and the R's in thinking that "they" set the agenda is the kind of arrogance that is particularly distasteful to the electorate. This may be why the approval rating of Congress barely raises above the 30% mark.

[SwissMercenary]

Bad PR. Over meddling by the ruling class. Focus on aspects which are irrelevant to faith. Intellectualism. Many many things contribute to peoples apathy.There is no protection from religion. There is protection from the government imposing religion upon people(establishment clause), but there is no stated protection from there being religion in civil society.

That's not the concern - the concern is my peers discriminating against me for my beliefs. Subjecting me to their morality. Refusing me medical treatment, based on their personal belief system. You know. That sort of thing.

Are you saying that government should not protect me against that?

[Jester]

Just to stick my nose in a bit. I would hope that it is the People, through their representatives whether they be D's or R's that set the agenda. I still write to my representatives hoping to add my influence to their decisions, even though I'm technically neither a D or an R. I guess what I see in Washington by both the D's and the R's in thinking that "they" set the agenda is the kind of arrogance that is particularly distasteful to the electorate. This may be why the approval rating of Congress barely raises above the 30% mark.

That's kind of my point: through the process, the people (by of and for) decide who gets to govern, and thus indirectly decides what their government is going to do. That a small number of people on either side (strictly, any side) actually formulated their party's policies is not the point. The point is that the choice rests with the voters, and the voters have given their decision, for now. Talking about that as the "majority" is perfectly reasonable.

As for congress, at the moment, approval barely raises above the 30% mark because the approval for Republicans in congress is miserable. If we were counting only Dems, the number would be more like 45%. People always hate congress, but they're clearly happier with one side of congress than the other. I think it's the stimulus driving that, at least for now.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Bad PR. Over meddling by the ruling class. Focus on aspects which are irrelevant to faith. Intellectualism. Many many things contribute to peoples apathy.

You see "apathy", I see "enlightenment".

There is no protection from religion. . . . Do you feel the government interferes with atheism?

And therein lies the problem. We are as immersed in religion as a fish is in water, and often no more aware. Something as basic as our seven day week with a day of rest is a function of religion. That is not to say the idea itself is bad, simply that it was developed because of a particular belief and dogma. As far as I can tell, no other culture came up with that idea.

Now, the seven day week works pretty well, especially now that it contains two days of rest. But if we wanted to simplify the calender, one of the things we could do is take New Year's Day and Leap Year's Day out of the week. Make them free standing days, and we'd only need two yearly calenders instead of fourteen. No problem for the atheist, or, for that matter, the Hindu, the Buddhist, any of the followers of the native religions of the Far East or sub Sahara Africa. But to "The People of the Book"? There would be riots. Rabis, priests and imams would condemn it. Rational thinking would have to give way to ancient superstitions.

So, yeah, we can't get away from religion. In some cases, we probably don't want to.

But putting "In God We Trust" on our SECULAR coins? Putting "under God" in our SECULAR pledge of loyalty? Asking us to affirm our truthfulness, "so help me God", in our SECULAR courts?

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, for if it doesn't, then it is one step from no freedom at all. Simply, as the Catholic Church once did, define your religion to be the only religion and all others to be heresy and paganism. And then, we all become free to worship in your way.

I defend your right to your freedom, please show me an equal courtesy.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I defend your right to your freedom, please show me an equal courtesy.

I do Pete. I think the addition of "God" in currency and pledges is an equal assault on the wall of seperation envisioned by the founders. Is it worth removing? For currencies, sure when they cycle. And, for the pledge, yes, anytime. I would rather than *all* Americans feel good about reciting the pledge, and "under God" is fairly irrelevant to the allegiance.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I do Pete.

Yes, I know that 'you', kandrathe, do. Part of the reason why I respect you. And thank you.

But I was addressing a larger 'you'. Those that think 'freedom' is the right to believe as they do. To act like they do. Those that do not, cannot, see why the symbols of their belief on my money, on my patriotism, on my justice, on my place of gathering is distressing to me.

--Pete