| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark K. Bilbo" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2003 06:30:48 PM |
| Object: |
Damn we're hypocrites... |
So this recent poll of attitudes in the US shows two very interesting
things.
One question is do you approve or disapprove of:
"The use of federal funds to support social programs like day care and
drug rehabilitation run by Christian religious organizations"
Approve - 64%
Disapprove - 34%
The *exact *same *question except with "Islamic" instead of "Christian"
obtained:
Approve - 41%
Disapprove - 56%
Same kind of thing happens with a question of whether you approve or
disapprove of:
"Display of a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public school or
government building"
Approve - 70%
Disapprove - 29%
Same question but substitute "with a verse from the Koran, the holy book
of the Islamic religion" "to the Ten Commandments" and you get:
Approve - 33%
Disapprove - 64%
Sheesh.
At *least there are two *encouraging results in the survey. Only about
10% believed it was acceptable to display *only christian symbols in
public religious displays (such as government buildings). 58% said you had
to allow everybody to play. 29% said "none at all."
So at least the christian ONLY set is out numbered 87% to 10%.
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn we're hypocrites... |
03 Oct 2003 01:29:04 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2003.10.02.23.30.47.581305@eac.org>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
So this recent poll of attitudes in the US shows two very interesting
things.
One question is do you approve or disapprove of:
"The use of federal funds to support social programs like day care and
drug rehabilitation run by Christian religious organizations"
Approve - 64%
Disapprove - 34%
The *exact *same *question except with "Islamic" instead of "Christian"
obtained:
Approve - 41%
Disapprove - 56%
Same kind of thing happens with a question of whether you approve or
disapprove of:
"Display of a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public school or
government building"
Approve - 70%
Disapprove - 29%
Same question but substitute "with a verse from the Koran, the holy book
of the Islamic religion" "to the Ten Commandments" and you get:
Approve - 33%
Disapprove - 64%
Sheesh.
Prejudice and religion are not strange bedfellows.
At *least there are two *encouraging results in the survey. Only about
10% believed it was acceptable to display *only christian symbols in
public religious displays (such as government buildings). 58% said you had
to allow everybody to play. 29% said "none at all."
So at least the christian ONLY set is out numbered 87% to 10%.
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
I don't think that the majority of Americans are rabid fundies, but
maybe just as bad, they don't give a crap about what the fundies, and
those they control, are doing to this country.
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn we're hypocrites... |
03 Oct 2003 10:31:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:29:04 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <pan.2003.10.02.23.30.47.581305@eac.org>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
So this recent poll of attitudes in the US shows two very interesting
things.
One question is do you approve or disapprove of:
"The use of federal funds to support social programs like day care and
drug rehabilitation run by Christian religious organizations"
Approve - 64%
Disapprove - 34%
The *exact *same *question except with "Islamic" instead of "Christian"
obtained:
Approve - 41%
Disapprove - 56%
Same kind of thing happens with a question of whether you approve or
disapprove of:
"Display of a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public school or
government building"
Approve - 70%
Disapprove - 29%
Same question but substitute "with a verse from the Koran, the holy book
of the Islamic religion" "to the Ten Commandments" and you get:
Approve - 33%
Disapprove - 64%
Sheesh.
Prejudice and religion are not strange bedfellows.
At *least there are two *encouraging results in the survey. Only about
10% believed it was acceptable to display *only christian symbols in
public religious displays (such as government buildings). 58% said you had
to allow everybody to play. 29% said "none at all."
So at least the christian ONLY set is out numbered 87% to 10%.
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
I don't think that the majority of Americans are rabid fundies, but
maybe just as bad, they don't give a crap about what the fundies, and
those they control, are doing to this country.
The tendency I've seen is when *faced with actual issues that have effect
on their lives and communities, the public turns *against the fundies. The
problem is that most of the time the public is apathetic and/or doesn't
think that "good christians" would do the things that are really going on.
USers have quite the amnesia problem. Scandal erupts all over the church
(of every denomination, they all have them, not just the Catholics),
people get enraged, upset, and turn off the money spigot. Then FORGET and
go on to the next.
Doesn't mean the next generation will, however. Kids tend to recoil from
hypocrisy pretty strongly. Even overreact to it.
Which is, I think, the reason for the battles over the schools. That's
the age group the survival of christianity will be decided...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn we're hypocrites... |
04 Oct 2003 01:09:12 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2003.10.03.15.31.31.225726@eac.org>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:29:04 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <pan.2003.10.02.23.30.47.581305@eac.org>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
<snip some>
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
I don't think that the majority of Americans are rabid fundies, but
maybe just as bad, they don't give a crap about what the fundies, and
those they control, are doing to this country.
The tendency I've seen is when *faced with actual issues that have effect
on their lives and communities, the public turns *against the fundies. The
problem is that most of the time the public is apathetic and/or doesn't
think that "good christians" would do the things that are really going on.
USers have quite the amnesia problem. Scandal erupts all over the church
(of every denomination, they all have them, not just the Catholics),
people get enraged, upset, and turn off the money spigot. Then FORGET and
go on to the next.
Doesn't mean the next generation will, however. Kids tend to recoil from
hypocrisy pretty strongly. Even overreact to it.
Which is, I think, the reason for the battles over the schools. That's
the age group the survival of christianity will be decided...
Exactly. The fundies think that if they get to a kid early enough,
they can brainwash him/her for life. It doesn't always work though. I
survived 12 years of Catholic schooling and look at me now! :-)
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn we're hypocrites... |
03 Oct 2003 01:59:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:30:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
At *least there are two *encouraging results in the survey. Only about
10% believed it was acceptable to display *only christian symbols in
public religious displays (such as government buildings). 58% said you had
to allow everybody to play. 29% said "none at all."
So at least the christian ONLY set is out numbered 87% to 10%.
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
I was surprised at the question about "The inscription 'In God We Trust' on U.S.
coins" being supported by 90% of respondents, but the one that really knocked me
back was the percentage that described themselves as "born-again or
evangelical?" - nearly half.
Here in the UK they would be considered a fringe element (I think). I tend to
think of evangelicals as a bunch of fanatical, raving nutters (but then I think
all religious types are at least slightly unhinged). Which leads me to suspect
that maybe the term doesn't have quite the same meaning in the US?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn we're hypocrites... |
03 Oct 2003 06:50:41 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<077qnvsl748q8qb300hg36308c3jlcikpg@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:30:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
At *least there are two *encouraging results in the survey. Only about
10% believed it was acceptable to display *only christian symbols in
public religious displays (such as government buildings). 58% said you had
to allow everybody to play. 29% said "none at all."
So at least the christian ONLY set is out numbered 87% to 10%.
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
I was surprised at the question about "The inscription 'In God We Trust' on U.S.
coins" being supported by 90% of respondents, but the one that really knocked me
back was the percentage that described themselves as "born-again or
evangelical?" - nearly half.
Here in the UK they would be considered a fringe element (I think). I tend to
think of evangelicals as a bunch of fanatical, raving nutters (but then I think
all religious types are at least slightly unhinged). Which leads me to suspect
that maybe the term doesn't have quite the same meaning in the US?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Alas, here in the US it *does have the same implications. To be fair,
many of my fellow Yankees use the term because the fundies have
bamboozled them into thinking that it's desirable to think and speak
that way. Probably only 10% (!) of us are dangerous thinkers.
(Establishing a theocracy would be good, let's start Armageddon, etc.)
Most of the others are neither trained nor inclined to care about
self-contradictions. They are fascinated by shiny baubles, and assume
that what has been happening for the last couple of years is the way
it will always be. They lack both a grasp of history and imagination.
<sigh>
Salt of the Earth, I suppose. I'm pinning my hopes on genetic
engineering...
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn we're hypocrites... |
03 Oct 2003 10:27:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:59:45 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:30:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
At *least there are two *encouraging results in the survey. Only about
10% believed it was acceptable to display *only christian symbols in
public religious displays (such as government buildings). 58% said you had
to allow everybody to play. 29% said "none at all."
So at least the christian ONLY set is out numbered 87% to 10%.
And given a choice between whether the government can promote religion
with or without harming rights, 54% said it can always harm rights.
Hm. Not great but not terrible. Middle of the road rather. At least the
rabid fundies don't seem to have gained *much traction...
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
I was surprised at the question about "The inscription 'In God We Trust' on U.S.
coins" being supported by 90% of respondents, but the one that really knocked me
back was the percentage that described themselves as "born-again or
evangelical?" - nearly half.
Here in the UK they would be considered a fringe element (I think). I tend to
think of evangelicals as a bunch of fanatical, raving nutters (but then I think
all religious types are at least slightly unhinged). Which leads me to suspect
that maybe the term doesn't have quite the same meaning in the US?
Well, it's still just a social thing. Most of those people are just
nodding when you say "Jesus" but wouldn't have a clue what he allegedly
said or did. Nor does it have much of anything to do with their actual
lives.
Interesting survey (I don't have to hand right now, sorry) did a more "in
depth" look at what people were doing as opposed to just *saying. In the
area under study, some 44% claimed they were active, devout christians.
Yet less than half that number actually could be found in church
attendance records.
I've seen several studies and surveys like that. Many from christian
organizations themselves. They consistently show maybe 10 to 20% of the
population actually goes to church, knows the doctrines, reads the bible,
etc., even with large numbers of people in general polls approving of "god."
So do those people who *call themselves "evangelical" and "born again"
know what it means? Probably not many. It's more the social equivalent of
"good person." And everybody likes to identify as a "good person."
But it's also fragile. Without any actual grounding in doctrine and
without connection to actual churches, those people could change in very
short order. Fads shift quickly. <wry-g>
Saw a Cal Thomas editorial in the paper today. Right wing type I usually
can't stand reading. Today, though, he was whining about--of all
things--the support of "god" on the money, "god" in the pledge, and
"commandments" in public places. That these things are surface and
meaningless and studies keep showing that US christians are *US *Americans
first, christians *second to a very large extent.
He has reason to complain. They could "win" all the symbolic gestures and
end up, a generation or two later, with no significant numbers of
*believers.
Personally, I do consider all these flaps and political games to be the
last, desperate gasp of a group (the inner, powerful ones) who in their
tiny, reptilian brains can smell death not so far away...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
