The Economist Examines American and British Attitudes

[it5five]

The Economist did this pretty interesting study/article comparing British and American attitudes toward a variety of different subjects.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10927596

The ones I find most interesting are that even the Conservatives in Britain are FAR more secular than most Democrats here in the United States.

What I find most disturbing is that most Americans in this survey answered that they find the Bible to be the best explanation for the origins of the Earth. More people believe the Bibles explanation than evolution. Not at all surprising, on the other hand, an extreme majority of Britons believe in evolution.

Regarding Iraq, it seems Americans and the British both feel almost exactly the same.

Just wanted to share. I wasn't surprised by most of this, but it was nice to see something like this done.

[Badandy]

The Economist did this pretty interesting study/article comparing British and American attitudes toward a variety of different subjects.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10927596

The ones I find most interesting are that even the Conservatives in Britain are FAR more secular than most Democrats here in the United States.

What I find most disturbing is that most Americans in this survey answered that they find the Bible to be the best explanation for the origins of the Earth. More people believe the Bibles explanation than evolution. Not at all surprising, on the other hand, an extreme majority of Britons believe in evolution.

Regarding Iraq, it seems Americans and the British both feel almost exactly the same.

Just wanted to share. I wasn't surprised by most of this, but it was nice to see something like this done.

It is not surprising to me, but quite shocking. I live in California, so using the bible as literal explanations of evolution and the creation of Earth is not common, at all. In fact, I don't think I've ever met someone in California that believed in creationism/iD. I believe we're one of the only nations where a huge percentage of "us" don't believe in evolution. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Queso]

Quite amazing how many people in the US consider something as benign as sex outside of marriage as wrong. You guys need to ditch all that Church rubbish and chill out a bit. Go on, elect an atheist. You know you want to :p

[skunk]

Go on, elect an atheist. You know you want to :pSadly of course, no candidate would ever admit to being an atheist.

[PlaceofDis]

Sadly of course, no candidate would ever admit to being an atheist.

exactly. not would they stand a chance of election.

the religious views in this country bother me sometimes.

[skunk]

the religious views in this country bother me sometimes.Only sometimes?

[PlaceofDis]

Only sometimes?

depends on who i'm talking to. :p
i know a lot of level headed people, and when i'm around them it seems like its not all that bad... but then there are things like this that just make me go wtf.

[CalBoy]

Sadly of course, no candidate would ever admit to being an atheist.

I read in a Newsweek story last year that more Americans would rather vote for a gay President than an atheist President.

Nice to know Americans look at qualifications first. :rolleyes:

[TheQuestion]

What I find most disturbing is that most Americans in this survey answered that they find the Bible to be the best explanation for the origins of the Earth. More people believe the Bibles explanation than evolution.

How does the theory of evolution explain the creation of the earth?

[SMM]

The Economist did this pretty interesting study/article comparing British and American attitudes toward a variety of different subjects.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10927596

The ones I find most interesting are that even the Conservatives in Britain are FAR more secular than most Democrats here in the United States.

What I find most disturbing is that most Americans in this survey answered that they find the Bible to be the best explanation for the origins of the Earth. More people believe the Bibles explanation than evolution. Not at all surprising, on the other hand, an extreme majority of Britons believe in evolution.

Regarding Iraq, it seems Americans and the British both feel almost exactly the same.

Just wanted to share. I wasn't surprised by most of this, but it was nice to see something like this done.

Thanks for sharing this. I spent 11 total weeks traveling throughout the British Isles and Ireland, on three different holidays. We always stayed in B & B's, well off the beaten track and away from the main tourist areas. That allowed us to develop friendships, enjoy warm and informed conversations, and just generally see the world through a new perspective.

We often met other travelers from other European countries. What we noticed right away was how much better informed all of these people were, compared to American citizens. GB only had three television stations. People depended much more on reading to get their news. We soon learned to find a newsstand each day, and pick-up 4-5 newspapers to read that evening. Again, the quality of the reporting was so much better than in America.

The factual content was far less slanted. The depth of the coverage was far greater. It was clear to me that this was a major contributor to their depth of knowledge. IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate. So, I am not surprised to see the results of this study you provided.

[Badandy]

IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate. So, I am not surprised to see the results of this study you provided.

C'mon, you had a good post up until this sentence.

I loved England when I visited it. But if we had 3 news stations people would be talking about government intervention in the MSM even more than they are now.

I enjoy the Economist, but I did find their newspapers slanted, and there were some that are definitely as sleazy as our tabloids we have here.

[ham_man]

IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate.
So conservatives are stupid?

[IJ Reilly]

Quite amazing how many people in the US consider something as benign as sex outside of marriage as wrong. You guys need to ditch all that Church rubbish and chill out a bit. Go on, elect an atheist. You know you want to :p

Now now, you're the country with the national church. I haven't heard any talk about dumping the C of E.

[SMM]

So conservatives are stupid?

I would not express it like that, but you are welcome to your opinion.

[Full of Win]

So conservatives are stupid?

That is what they like to think.

Talk about using stereotypes - what about judging people on a person-to-person basis. Let me throw this out there: Why is acceptable for someone to say "IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate." yet it would not be acceptable for another person to say "IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be white".

Both statements pigeonhole groups of people.

[SMM]

That is what they like to think.

Talk about using stereotypes - what about judging people on a person-to-person basis. Let me throw this out there: Why is acceptable for someone to say "IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate." yet it would not be acceptable for another person to say "IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be white".

Both statements pigeonhole groups of people.

Actually, I would much prefer NOT to think that way. There was a time when the republican party, and their conservative views, were mainly based on fiscal conservatism. They were generally not authoritarians, or hardened social conservatives. I am talking about Goldwater conservatives.

When the republican party was engulfed, by neo-cons and authoritarians, the fiscal conservatives moved to what is today, moderate. But, too many just follow the new conservative dogma, and do not bother to learn the truth. I am sorry, but there are far too many right-wing messiahs out there, embarrassing republicans to simply ignore it.

Finally, your analogy of "..... tend to be white." makes zero sense at all. First of all, do not put words in my mouth, or assume to understand anything more than I have written. I was talking about a well documented pre-disposition of right-wing authoritarians to form (or have formed for them) opinions based on how they want the world to be, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

[Badandy]

Actually, I would much prefer NOT to think that way. There was a time when the republican party, and their conservative views, were mainly based on fiscal conservatism. They were generally not authoritarians, or hardened social conservatives. I am talking about Goldwater conservatives.

When the republican party was engulfed, by neo-cons and authoritarians, the fiscal conservatives moved to what is today, moderate. But, too many just follow the new conservative dogma, and do not bother to learn the truth. I am sorry, but there are far too many right-wing messiahs out there, embarrassing republicans to simply ignore it.

You don't need to ignore it, but you do recognize that there are those in the Republican party that are fiscal conservatives, who are not socially conservative, yet still belong to the party. That should not be ignored as well.

[Full of Win]

Actually, I would much prefer NOT to think that way. There was a time when the republican party, and their conservative views, were mainly based on fiscal conservatism. They were generally not authoritarians, or hardened social conservatives. I am talking about Goldwater conservatives.

When the republican party was engulfed, by neo-cons and authoritarians, the fiscal conservatives moved to what is today, moderate. But, too many just follow the new conservative dogma, and do not bother to learn the truth. I am sorry, but there are far too many right-wing messiahs out there, embarrassing republicans to simply ignore it.

Finally, your analogy of "..... tend to be white." makes zero sense at all. First of all, do not put words in my mouth, or assume to understand anything more than I have written. I was talking about a well documented pre-disposition of right-wing authoritarians to form (or have formed for them) opinions based on how they want the world to be, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

You did not qualify it – go back and show me where you did. You can type a lot of words to deflect this issue, that being you use of stereotypes, but it will not obfuscate its use.

My analogy made perfect sense – and I’ll show you how if you are willing to put your stereotypes aside for a minute.

You said “IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate”

So, you ascribed a quality to a group of people, and by implication insulated another group (e.g. if liberals and moderates use their brain, where does that leave conservatives)

So, in my example with race, I did the same thing – where I ascribed a quality (like you did) to a particular group of people. I never 'put words in your mouth', I just restated your ugly stereotype with another group to illustrate how closed-minded it really was. If you need the definition of sterotype, I’ve provided the following link for your education.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GFRC&q=define%3A+Stereotype&btnG=Search

I just wish we could get past statements like yours of “IMHO, individuals who actually use their brain, tend to be liberal to moderate”, because it lessens us all, yourself included.

[Queso]

Now now, you're the country with the national church. I haven't heard any talk about dumping the C of E.
That's because you don't live here. Every week people are calling for the C of E to be disestablished.

I mean, how offensive is our National Anthem? "God Save The Queen" translates to "Non-existent sky fairy props up non-democratic medieval hangover" to me. Hardly something I want to be singing :D

[Much Ado]

I haven't heard any talk about dumping the C of E.

The Church of England is hardly a leviathan amongst the branches of Christianity, let's be honest. It's a wine and cheese church. A "please come in, we serve coffee after the service" sort of church.

"Technically we do believe in original sin, but if you don't want to believe that, then that's fine too. God is flexible. Would you like maraca for the hymn?"

I mean, how offensive is our National Anthem? "God Save The Queen" translates to "Non-existent sky fairy props up non-democratic medieval hangover" to me. Hardly something I want to be singing :D

That made my day :)

[solvs]

How does the theory of evolution explain the creation of the earth?
He said origins, not creation.

That is what they like to think.

Talk about using stereotypes
You don't see the irony in this?

I'm not going to say I agree with the assumptions, though I'd would like to point out he said "tend", and I also want to point out that one chooses to be a political leaning, but doesn't choose their skin color.

[Cromulent]

Now now, you're the country with the national church. I haven't heard any talk about dumping the C of E.

The Church of England has no bearing on peoples day to day lives over here and very little (if any) to do with politics either. Even though we have a state church, we actually manage to separate the government from religion much better than the US does. At least our politicians don't have to lie about being christians to get elected.

He said origins, not creation.

How does evolution tell you anything about the origins of the Earth then?

That's what physics is for.

[IJ Reilly]

That's because you don't live here. Every week people are calling for the C of E to be disestablished.

Really. Which naturally begs the question, why then does Britain still maintain a state church? Do any of the major political parties have disestablishment as a plank in their platforms?

The Church of England is hardly a leviathan amongst the branches of Christianity, let's be honest. It's a wine and cheese church. A "please come in, we serve coffee after the service" sort of church.

"Technically we do believe in original sin, but if you don't want to believe that, then that's fine too. God is flexible. Would you like maraca for the hymn?"

So, the perfect solution to minimizing the impact of religiosity in daily life is a state church? Who would have guessed!

The Church of England has no bearing on peoples day to day lives over here and very little (if any) to do with politics either. Even though we have a state church, we actually manage to separate the government from religion much better than the US does. At least our politicians don't have to lie about being christians to get elected.

An official state religion, funded by the government, but still more separate. Interesting theory, that.

I wonder, have any of your MPs recently confessed to being atheists?

[CalBoy]

I wonder, have any of your MPs recently confessed to being atheists?

That would be interesting. AFAIK, the only openly atheist member of Congress (either house) is Pete Stark from CA's 13th (my home district! :D).

[skunk]

Really. Which naturally begs the question, why then does Britain still maintain a state church? Do any of the major political parties have disestablishment as a plank in their platforms?I wish to god (!) that religion and politics were not intertwined here even to the extent that they are. There are bishops in the House of Lords (the "Lords Spiritual") and the Queen is the head of the Church. They should all pack their bags, leave their palaces and go get proper jobs.I wonder, have any of your MPs recently confessed to being atheists?Actually, yes: Nick Clegg MP, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has done just that, to considerable popular acclaim.

[IJ Reilly]

That would be interesting. AFAIK, the only openly atheist member of Congress (either house) is Pete Stark from CA's 13th (my home district! :D).

Actually, yes: Nick Clegg MP, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has done just that, to considerable popular acclaim.

So it seems we both have one, each. It's practically a movement!

Still, no party with disestablishment on the agenda?

[skunk]

Still, no party with disestablishment on the agenda?The Liberal Democratic party has had disestablishment in its manifesto for a number of years, but it has yet to make a significant breakthrough to national political power.

This is the current position, not quite as advertised:
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/prelimpages.pdf
The situation in the United Kingdom is unique with an established church in England, a national, largely disestablished church in Scotland and no established churches in Wales or Northern Ireland. That said, only one faith, the Church of England, has formal representation in the House of Lords - a second chamber with authority over the entire United Kingdom.
There are, of course, several Muslim MPs, too.

[Cromulent]

An official state religion, funded by the government, but still more separate. Interesting theory, that.

I wonder, have any of your MPs recently confessed to being atheists?

Hardly a theory. Religion is much much less of an issue here than it is in the states.

[psychofreak]

Hardly a theory. Religion is much much less of an issue here than it is in the states.

Religion still causes a huge amount of problems in the UK.

For example, there is a large problem of social-non integration centred around religious divides. Even here in Hammersmith where I live there are quite a few Muslim families who don't speak English. On another point, I find from personal experience that many (not all) people from Jewish-only schools are very ignorant about evolutionary theory, as in some schools the compulsory Jewish Studies GCSE is taught as fact next to less-taught sciences.

[Cromulent]

Religion still causes a huge amount of problems in the UK.

For example, there is a large problem of social-non integration centred around religious divides. Even here in Hammersmith where I live there are quite a few Muslim families who don't speak English.

That has nothing to do with the Church of England though. People not speaking English is a general problem and shouldn't be placed at the feet of religion or the state religion.

On another point, I find from personal experience that many (not all) people from Jewish-only schools are very ignorant about evolutionary theory, as in some schools the compulsory Jewish Studies GCSE is taught as fact next to less-taught sciences.

I've never agreed with religious schools, but at least the UK does require all schools to teach evolution.

[IJ Reilly]

The Liberal Democratic party has had disestablishment in its manifesto for a number of years, but it has yet to make a significant breakthrough to national political power.

Isn't Godot likely to arrive sooner? I'm not as up on this as I once was, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the LDP (and SDP) pretty completely fail to build a broader political coalition during the 1980s and 1990s, while Tony Blair was busily recasting Labour as a more centrist party?

Hardly a theory. Religion is much much less of an issue here than it is in the states.

Except that the church is an official part of your government, and nobody seems to be very interested in removing it. Will the ironies never cease? I suppose it all depends on what you call "an issue."

[Cromulent]

Except that the church is an official part of your government, and nobody seems to be very interested in removing it. Will the ironies never cease? I suppose it all depends on what you call "an issue."

Well, in America if you are not religious some people label you as unpatriotic and that is looked down on by society in general. Neither of those things is such an issue over here, both the religious and patriotism problem.

That is a pretty poor example but I can't think of a better one at the moment. Religion is deeply ingrained in American culture, as is shown by your different President's comments over the last 20 years or so when they seem to have said that religious American is a good American.

[Much Ado]

Except that the church is an official part of your government, and nobody seems to be very interested in removing it.

Like the Queen, it's just one of those pieces of furniture that no-one has bothered to change.

Seriously, the CoE is better suited to making cheese scones at charity fairs than dominating our politics.

[Queso]

Really. Which naturally begs the question, why then does Britain still maintain a state church?
Because the monarchy and church are so intertwined. We need to be rid of both. When the current Queen dies and is replaced by her far less popular son we may actually manage it.

[chrmjenkins]

He said origins, not creation.


That doesn't matter. The point of evolution is not to explain the origin of Earth or life. It is to explain how we've come from simpler life forms to more complicated life forms. Evolution assumes a single-celled life form in the beginning and seeks to explain how present day species evolved from that single cell.

As to how that single cell first got here, it's not evolution's goal to explain that.

For his exact statement, I wouldn't be too critical. I don't think any implication was necessarily intentional.

[Cromulent]

Still, no party with disestablishment on the agenda?

Whats the point? It doesn't do anything really and plays next to no part in the running of the country.

Having the Church of England at least guarantees that the majority of British people follow a sensible christian denomination rather than some of the wacko ones out there.

[bartelby]

Whats the point? It doesn't do anything really and plays next to no part in the running of the country.


We also don't pretend to separate the two.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, in America if you are not religious some people label you as unpatriotic and that is looked down on by society in general. Neither of those things is such an issue over here, both the religious and patriotism problem.

That is a pretty poor example but I can't think of a better one at the moment. Religion is deeply ingrained in American culture, as is shown by your different President's comments over the last 20 years or so when they seem to have said that religious American is a good American.

You can always find someone who will say anything, but that's indicative of nothing, and I would certainly disagree with the implication that Americans who aren't religious are looked down upon by society in general. This simply is not so. In fact religion isn't discussed among Americans nearly as much as people outside the country seem to imagine. Most people won't even broach the subject with anyone who's religion and views they don't already know. Sure, many politicians leverage the religion issue when it suits them, but this has less to do with American religious views than with how politicians behave when confronted with opportunities.

As for the Church of England, I don't think it can be completely dismissed as merely a quaint artifact when it remains integrated into your system of government, and there doesn't seem to be much urgency for altering the situation. I'm not being critical, just pointing out that church and state relationship issues are various and complicated, and may be more difficult to characterize than they may appear on the surface.

[Cromulent]

As for the Church of England, I don't think it can be completely dismissed as merely a quaint artifact when it remains integrated into your system of government, and there doesn't seem to be much urgency for altering the situation. I'm not being critical, just pointing out that church and state relationship issues are various and complicated, and may be more difficult to characterize than they may appear on the surface.

The Church of England really isn't what most people seem to think. For instance we have openly gay priests. The Church (as mentioned before) does have some seats in the House of Lords, although the House of Commons can overrule the Lords if they really want force through legislation.

Yes, the Church does is one of the largest land owners in the country but I don't think it can be said to have significant influence in the day to day running of the country.

And despite what many Americans try and state, the US does have many more problems with religion, especially the religious right which the UK is pretty much bereft of.

[it5five]

How does the theory of evolution explain the creation of the earth?



How does evolution tell you anything about the origins of the Earth then?

That's what physics is for.

That doesn't matter. The point of evolution is not to explain the origin of Earth or life. It is to explain how we've come from simpler life forms to more complicated life forms. Evolution assumes a single-celled life form in the beginning and seeks to explain how present day species evolved from that single cell.

As to how that single cell first got here, it's not evolution's goal to explain that.

For his exact statement, I wouldn't be too critical. I don't think any implication was necessarily intentional.

I was using the same words as the Economist article did. Talk to them about it if you have an issue with the wording.

But, I think the point was this: do people use science to explain the origins of the earth, or do people use the Bible as an explanation for the origins of earth.

Wording aside, it's still frightening to see such a dismissal/contempt of science among some of the religious right in this country.

[chrmjenkins]

I was using the same words as the Economist article did. Talk to them about it if you have an issue with the wording.

But, I think the point was this: do people use science to explain the origins of the earth, or do people use the Bible as an explanation for the origins of earth.

Wording aside, it's still frightening to see such a dismissal/contempt of science among some of the religious right in this country.

Yes, that's poor wording on their part. However, they were short answers/questions and I guess they thought that was the best choice of wording. (even so, that would say that the big bang theory is part of evolution, which definitely isn't true).

As for your other point, I would agree that a categorical rejection of science is a hindrance to progress. I wish we had the kind of commitment to things like wind and solar that places like Germany do.

[IJ Reilly]

The Church of England really isn't what most people seem to think. For instance we have openly gay priests. The Church (as mentioned before) does have some seats in the House of Lords, although the House of Commons can overrule the Lords if they really want force through legislation.

Yes, the Church does is one of the largest land owners in the country but I don't think it can be said to have significant influence in the day to day running of the country.

And despite what many Americans try and state, the US does have many more problems with religion, especially the religious right which the UK is pretty much bereft of.

Because you say so? Well then, it must be true.

I notice you completely avoided the first part of my response, except I suppose with your condescendingly dismissive "despite what Americans try and state" remark. And of course the "openly gay priests" in the C of E remark is completely lacking in any relevance whatsoever, unless you're really trying to say that it's okay for a state to maintain an official church, so long as it's a right-thinking church in your opinion.

It's quite amusing to hear a state church defended on the grounds that it is either (1) a really very nice church, or (2) it can be overruled by secular authorities "if they really want to."

[Hmac]

How does the theory of evolution explain the creation of the earth?The theory of evolution doesn't explain the creation of the earth, it explains the creation of human beings. The Big Bang theory explains the creation of the earth.

[Cromulent]

Because you say so? Well then, it must be true.

You actually have not said anything to backup your claims yet. If you provide some evidence of the supposed huge influence the Church of England has over general politics in this country I would be happy to see it.

I notice you completely avoided the first part of my response, except I suppose with your condescendingly dismissive "despite what Americans try and state" remark.

First of all, I was not trying to be condescending in the slightest. Text sometimes comes out sounding wrong.

As for the first part of your response, it is irrelevant what people do in a social context we are talking in a political context here.

It's quite amusing to hear a state church defended on the grounds that it is either (1) a really very nice church, or (2) it can be overruled by secular authorities "if they really want to."

My god, this must be the first time I've ever been defending a religious organisation. But, first time for everything I guess.

As for point 1) I'm not defending it on those grounds and for point 2) they don't have any power that a secular authority would need to overrule.

I don't understand why you are so critical of the Church of England when American politics is much more religiously polarised than English politics.

[Hmac]

I don't understand why you are so critical of the Church of England when American politics is much more religiously polarised than English politics.

Gotta agree there. American politics are silly enough without throwing religion into the mix. Then it truly becomes the Gong Show.

[IJ Reilly]

You actually have not said anything to backup your claims yet. If you provide some evidence of the supposed huge influence the Church of England has over general politics in this country I would be happy to see it.

Since I never said that, I suppose I don't need to defend it.

I don't understand why you are so critical of the Church of England when American politics is much more religiously polarised than English politics.

Well again, since I never said that, I suppose I don't need to defend it. On both points, maybe you can go back and read what I actually said.

Also, I don't know you mean precisely by "religiously polarized." I am unfamiliar with these religious poles of which you speak.

[TheQuestion]

He said origins, not creation.


Very well. How does the theory of evolution explain the origins of the earth?

[ham_man]

Very well. How does the theory of evolution explain the origins of the earth?
Alright, let's go ahead and clear up some semantics.

The theory of evolution deals with how species change and progress over their time on Earth.

The theory of creation of life has some scientific postulations, such as an extraterrestrial comet seeding the Earth with life or microbes being formed in pools filled with amino acids, with nothing conclusive proven.

The theory of the creation of the Earth is a physics thing, and for the most part scientists agree on how it all solidified and settled down (protostar, etc.)

The theory of the creation of the universe involves the Big Bang, etc.

Most sane religious people accept these as true. I do.

The contention comes, personally, in the creation of life and the universe. While atheists may prefer a purely scientific explanation, I like to think that God had a role in it somehow. But again, that can't be proven.

[TheQuestion]

I was using the same words as the Economist article did. Talk to them about it if you have an issue with the wording.


Given how badly worded the proposition of the original question is then, does not the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" seem applicable? Cannot one believe in creation and evolution at once?

[edesignuk]

Now now, you're the country with the national church. I haven't heard any talk about dumping the C of E.

Except that the church is an official part of your government, and nobody seems to be very interested in removing it. Will the ironies never cease? I suppose it all depends on what you call "an issue."

It may exist, but you also seem to be missing the point and just repeating yourself. CoE is here, but, newsflash, *NOBODY CARES*. If nobody cares and it has bugger all influence then there are more important things to be spending time on than worrying about what the rapidly shrinking CoE is preaching.

The absurd tie between government and religion in the US is one of the main things that would constantly bother me to no end if I were to move there (which thanks to my yank wife I could!).

Adam and freaking Eve, puleeeease.

[Queso]

It may exist, but you also seem to be missing the point and just repeating yourself. CoE is here, but, newsflash, *NOBODY CARES*. If nobody cares and it has bugger all influence then there are more important things to be spending time on than worrying about what the rapidly shrinking CoE is preaching.
I care. I want the Bishops removed from the House of Lords. The Archbishop of Canterbury has shown he's prepared to take orders from the Church of Nigeria in order to prevent a schism, therefore those bishops have to be regarded as a foreign lobbying group within Parliament.

And the shrinking nature of the CoE is yet another reason why their Parliamentary presence should be permanently removed. Their representatives should have been replaced at the same time as the hereditary peers.

[IJ Reilly]

It may exist, but you also seem to be missing the point and just repeating yourself. CoE is here, but, newsflash, *NOBODY CARES*. If nobody cares and it has bugger all influence then there are more important things to be spending time on than worrying about what the rapidly shrinking CoE is preaching.

The absurd tie between government and religion in the US is one of the main things that would constantly bother me to no end if I were to move there (which thanks to my yank wife I could!).

Adam and freaking Eve, puleeeease.

No, it's not me who is "missing the point." The tie between government and religion is a legal and actual fact in the UK. That "nobody cares" is hardly an explanation. Ties between government and religion in the US are prohibited by the Constitution, so no such relationship could exist. Arguing the there are "ties between government and religion in the US," simply because more Americans consider themselves to be religious, is factually wrong. Or to use your word, absurd.

[edesignuk]

No, it's not me who is "missing the point." The tie between government and religion is a legal and actual fact in the UK. That "nobody cares" is hardly an explanation. Ties between government and religion in the US are prohibited by the Constitution, so no such relationship could exist. Arguing the there are "ties between government and religion in the US," simply because more Americans consider themselves to be religious, is factually wrong. Or to use your word, absurd.OK mate, whatever you say.

The UK is ruled by religion and the US isn't at all. Thank "god" for the constitution protecting you all from heavy religious influence in your government eh?

[Hmac]

No, it's not me who is "missing the point." The tie between government and religion is a legal and actual fact in the UK. That "nobody cares" is hardly an explanation. Ties between government and religion in the US are prohibited by the Constitution, so no such relationship could exist. Arguing the there are "ties between government and religion in the US," simply because more Americans consider themselves to be religious, is factually wrong. Or to use your word, absurd.
The insertion of religious organizations into American politics, and therefore government, is increasingly prevalent. There are no indeed no legal or constitutional ties between US government and religion, but religion in American politics and government is an absolute fact of life.

[iBlue]

All of that aside, there is a distinct 'feel' of religiousness and conservativeness in the US that I do not feel in the UK. People here seem indifferent to it. It's all around you and you notice it in little things. People's attitudes and habits. It's in the fact that Viagra is over the counter here. Women get their birth control here for free. No one panics if you say 'god damn it' or if a boobie is shown on TV. It's acceptable to have a drink at the pub at lunch time and go back to work. Drug testing is not compulsory with attaining most jobs you get in the UK. Etcetera. It's just a feel. People are generally more open to life outside of what the government or the bible has to say about it. Sure everyone is individual but I am speaking in general over what I perceive to be enormous differences between the two places. The notorious 'land of the free' often felt like anything but.

[atszyman]

You don't need to ignore it, but you do recognize that there are those in the Republican party that are fiscal conservatives, who are not socially conservative, yet still belong to the party. That should not be ignored as well.

I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative socially progressive person. However it has led me to the Democrats as being more in my line of thinking in the last elections. In my lifetime the budget has been balanced when we had a Democratic president, and when the GOP was put back in charge deficits re-appeared and government grew more than it did under the prior Democrat, it seems that the current incarnation of the GOP has no interest in fiscal conservatism.

If the party has strayed from the ideals you support, why do you still support the party?

By sticking with the party, you just validate the idea that you like, or endorse what they are doing. If you want them to change back you need to send them the message that they're path is wrong, and unfortunately the only way to show them you believe they are on the wrong path is to vote them out, as long as they're winning, they'll continue on the path that's winning.

[IJ Reilly]

OK mate, whatever you say.

The UK is ruled by religion and the US isn't at all. Thank "god" for the constitution protecting you all from heavy religious influence in your government eh?

Well, since I never said either one of these things, I will have to regard your remarks as theoretical.

[IJ Reilly]

The insertion of religious organizations into American politics, and therefore government, is increasingly prevalent. There are no indeed no legal or constitutional ties between US government and religion, but religion in American politics and government is an absolute fact of life.

Ah, well now we're getting closer to reality. The US is absolutely a more religious country than many others, including the UK, and this is reflected in our national discussions, politics, etc. More than I (as a religiously unaffiliated person) would prefer? Yes, certainly -- but still, we don't have a national church, and could not, whether it's one we care about or otherwise. I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I think this difference is interesting. I don't know why even bringing up this subject seems to offend some Britons. Possibly such a secular nation clinging to a state church is a bit of an embarrassment, I don't know.

[Qoxiivi]

While significantly diminished, the Church of England does still have an established and recognized connection and role within British society; something which I'd like to see expunged entirely. Its role mind, not British society ;)

The primary insidious role religion has within a state however is one of suppression of dissent and independent/critical thought amongst its populace. It's a very good control mechanism - something that those with a vested interest in controlling public perceptions, thoughts, habits and opinions know very well and have done for some time. Today this is far more prevalent in America than in the UK.

Still, I'd like to see any and all religious influence removed from the British political system as well. I guess the reason this doesn't appear to be high on many people's lists though is for the same reason it's not high on anyone's list to try and repeal silly, ancient and insignificant laws like it being illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour. It doesn't really affect many people's lives in such a way that drives them to actually give a toss about it.

[Much Ado]

I guess the reason this doesn't appear to be high on many people's lists though is for the same reason it's not high on anyone's list to try and repeal silly, ancient and insignificant laws like it being illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour.

Yes, it would also appear irresponsible to have a debate on this issue at a time when the economy, climate change and foreign policy are more important matters, amongst others.

[IJ Reilly]

The primary insidious role religion has within a state however is one of suppression of dissent and independent/critical thought amongst its populace. It's a very good control mechanism - something that those with a vested interest in controlling public perceptions, thoughts, habits and opinions know very well and have done for some time. Today this is far more prevalent in America than in the UK.

This is a huge leap of logic. The founders were well aware of the role religion could play in government and deliberately built a firewall against it, both for the sake of government and religion. There is no religiously-based "suppression of dissent" in the US. I don't know where this idea comes from.

Yes, it would also appear irresponsible to have a debate on this issue at a time when the economy, climate change and foreign policy are more important matters, amongst others.

It would be debate, then?

[nbs2]

I'm not going to say I agree with the assumptions, though I'd would like to point out he said "tend", and I also want to point out that one chooses to be a political leaning, but doesn't choose their skin color.

One chooses one's core beliefs? One may choose a political party based on its reflection of what you most value, but the core beliefs are not chosen at will. Just like skin treatments will let you drastically alter your tone, your core beliefs can be slowly adapted, but they won't change overnight.

Asserting that an individual that uses their brain is unlikely to be conservative is dismissive of a large number of educated figures in a variety of fields. If you prefer not to trust the mental developments of those figures, let me know and I'll compile a small list of those whom you can ignore.

That would be interesting. AFAIK, the only openly atheist member of Congress (either house) is Pete Stark from CA's 13th (my home district! :D).

Pete Stark? His anti-kickback laws have been problematic small towns where the only practices in town have husbands and wives working for them. Hardly a bastion of thinking things through.

Whats the point? It doesn't do anything really and plays next to no part in the running of the country.

Having the Church of England at least guarantees that the majority of British people follow a sensible christian denomination rather than some of the wacko ones out there.

So because it espouses the ideals of, or is at least non-offensive to, Cromulent, it is acceptable as a state religion? The very foundation of the separation of church and state in the US is the C of E.

I don't know why even bringing up this subject seems to offend some Britons. Possibly such a secular nation clinging to a state church is a bit of an embarrassment, I don't know.

Clinging to a state religion is popular in Europe. For all the talk about how the churches there have no power and that they are meaningless, and that the US needs to spend time legislating religion to the far corners of the country, places like the UK, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, etc. seem to be awfully slow to enact changes.

[CalBoy]

Pete Stark? His anti-kickback laws have been problematic small towns where the only practices in town have husbands and wives working for them. Hardly a bastion of thinking things through.

:confused:

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to, but what does it have to do with this thread?

[nbs2]

:confused:

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to, but what does it have to do with this thread?

Directly, nothing.

Indirectly, the generalization was made that conservative or religious folks are the ones that tend not to think. The entire sample set, however small, of admitted non-religious folk in Congress indicates that the same generalization can be made. Not using your head is a problem that doesn't tend to limit itself to any political leaning or religious belief.

And the reference was to Stark's anti-kickback/self referral laws - if your law school offers it, take a health law course

[IJ Reilly]

Clinging to a state religion is popular in Europe. For all the talk about how the churches there have no power and that they are meaningless, and that the US needs to spend time legislating religion to the far corners of the country, places like the UK, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, etc. seem to be awfully slow to enact changes.

Which suggests to me that an effort to actually away with the state church would be more controversial than is being allowed. I feel as though I need to repeat that I'm not being critical. I understand how deeply embedded these institutions are historically and culturally -- I'm only bringing this up as a point of reference. Those who would criticize the US for the place religion holds in the national culture might want to consider that it isn't non-extant in their own.

[Much Ado]

It would be debate, then?

There are two sides to every argument, (even if one of them is as wet as a sweaty herring).

[Gelfin]

Which suggests to me that an effort to actually away with the state church would be more controversial than is being allowed. I feel as though I need to repeat that I'm not being critical. I understand how deeply embedded these institutions are historically and culturally -- I'm only bringing this up as a point of reference. Those who would criticize the US for the place religion holds in the national culture might want to consider that it isn't non-extant in their own.

The thrust of your original barb seemed to be that the existence of the CoE represents a plank in the eye of the British people whose presence precludes mention of a relative mote in our own. Does this actually represent your understanding of the reality of it, or may we admit that deeper consideration of the actual role religion plays in public life is necessary for such a comparison?

For the sake of comparison, does the presence of a British monarch automatically exclude them from commenting on the autocratic leanings of our current administration? Before we answer, does it matter that their nominal monarch has practically no real power?

If I've got this wrong I would appreciate enlightenment from a local, but from a third of a planet away it looks very much to me like aside from a dwindling number of religious fundamentalists who would strongly oppose disestablishment, the CoE is mostly allowed to retain its traditional position because it does so little harm that the effort to remove it would be more trouble than it's worth, like removal of an appendix that isn't infected. If the church began actively intruding on people's secular lives in a harmful way, they'd toss it out faster than you can say the Lord's Prayer.

I've gotten the impression that the CoE is probably the best current example of one of the more plausible possibilities for the ultimate demise of religion. In this scenario the institutions themselves do not dissolve, but the superstition atrophies, leaving the churches as social and humanitarian organizations with perhaps some old traditions, but no belief in the literal truth of the myths that originally motivated them. Is there any accuracy to this interpretation?

[Qoxiivi]

This is a huge leap of logic. The founders were well aware of the role religion could play in government and deliberately built a firewall against it, both for the sake of government and religion. There is no religiously-based "suppression of dissent" in the US. I don't know where this idea comes from.

Yeah. What a massive leap of logic to suggest that religion plays a role in suppression of dissent and independent thought. Because that’s never happened has it? Like with Darwin and Galileo two give two examples out of a multitude?

Christ, even in America today the creationist movement is trying to nullify decades of scientific progress by attempting to have ID given the same weight of consideration as evolution by natural selection in science classes. That’s not even attempted suppression of dissent – but rather attempted suppression of well-established scientific convention. And not on the basis of science either (despite Intelligent Design’s delusions of theoretical adequacy) but rather faith. Baseless, unthinking, uncritical acceptance of religious doctrine. Oh, and the widely discredited and lampooned teleological argument.

As the relevant section of the Economist’s study reveals, collectively, about 60% of Americans cite either ‘The Bible’ or ‘Intelligent Design’ as the correct explanation of ‘the origin of the earth’*. That such backwards idiocy and ignorance can achieve this kind of popular support in such a developed society is in itself an astonishing testament to religion’s ability to suppress critical thinking. The information’s there for people, they’re just not allowed to think it. God’s just testing them you see. Well, either him or the devil. One of them. Probably. Just stay true to the course and you’ll get your reward in heaven. Sure.

Oh, and nice to see that firewall working so well here:

Robert Sherman: “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”

George Bush: “No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

So, according to an elected American president atheists are inherently anti-American and should not be considered as citizens. And where was the huge public backlash at this statement? His son’s even more evangelical though – claiming many a time that God “speaks to him” and that he’s on a “mission from God”. All in all, nice job keeping religion out of politics.

Indirectly, the generalization was made that conservative or religious folks are the ones that tend not to think. The entire sample set, however small, of admitted non-religious folk in Congress indicates that the same generalization can be made. Not using your head is a problem that doesn't tend to limit itself to any political leaning or religious belief.

I think you’re right; there are stupid atheists, liberals, conservatives and theists and the process of ‘not using your head’ isn’t limited to conservatism or religiosity. If I’m honest though, it is my opinion that ignorance and/or lack of objective, honest, critical thinking can (especially in capitalist democracies for reasons of their inherent societal structures) lead more naturally towards to a person finding both those intellectual states more appealing. My reasoning, in a very brief nutshell, is that there are more compelling emotional drivers associated with both right-wing and religious thinking – they’re both comfortable and self-serving ideologies. Atheism and liberal attitudes however aren’t as attractive (eg: accepting there’s no heaven) from a self-serving emotional point of view – to reach them as a ‘conclusion’ or mode of living often takes honest intellectual and introspective reflection rather than just emotional indolence. One rule I’ve always stuck by is that if I’m thinking about something and reach a conclusion that makes me feel better about myself – I should go back and reevaluate it all one last time. There’s a danger that I’ve concluded what I have not because it’s where the facts inevitably terminated, but rather because it was merely comfortable for me to stop thinking where I did. To me, conservative and religious thinking is full of such convenient and emotionally potent conclusions/attitudes and it often takes intelligence and integrity to leave the comfort of these ideologies.

As far as studies go, there have been ones that suggest a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity as well as ones that suggest otherwise. None are conclusive. My own thinking on the subject is drawn not from the results of any particular ‘study’, but rather from drawing together the disparate strands of 'understanding' I’ve accumulated from various subjects and exercises of inquiry that interest me.

I don’t know I’m right on this, but I’ve got a hunch that I might be, at least, on the right track. However, I’m also fully prepared to admit I might be wrong and, if I am, have other hunches as to why that might be. One possibility, for example, for why I support the notion that atheists and those of a liberal persuasion are, on the whole, more intelligent could be solely because it makes me feel better about myself and superior to theists and conservatives. That’s a possibility (an emotional driver if ever there was one) that I’m more than willing to admit to :) It’s not where my chips are at the moment though ;)

*I’d also just like to point out that evolution doesn’t explain the origin of the earth either and neither does it attempt to. The advancement and complexity of life on earth yes, but not the origin of earth itself.

[Qoxiivi]

If I've got this wrong I would appreciate enlightenment from a local, but from a third of a planet away it looks very much to me like aside from a dwindling number of religious fundamentalists who would strongly oppose disestablishment, the CoE is mostly allowed to retain its traditional position because it does so little harm that the effort to remove it would be more trouble than it's worth, like removal of an appendix that isn't infected. If the church began actively intruding on people's secular lives in a harmful way, they'd toss it out faster than you can say the Lord's Prayer.

I've gotten the impression that the CoE is probably the best current example of one of the more plausible possibilities for the ultimate demise of religion. In this scenario the institutions themselves do not dissolve, but the superstition atrophies, leaving the churches as social and humanitarian organizations with perhaps some old traditions, but no belief in the literal truth of the myths that originally motivated them. Is there any accuracy to this interpretation?

Not for the first time, I completely agree with you. To my mind, both these paragraphs are spot on. Apart from your double-spacing after fullstops. That's something I've never been happy with ;)

[IJ Reilly]

The thrust of your original barb seemed to be that the existence of the CoE represents a plank in the eye of the British people whose presence precludes mention of a relative mote in our own. Does this actually represent your understanding of the reality of it, or may we admit that deeper consideration of the actual role religion plays in public life is necessary for such a comparison?

It wasn't intended as a barb. I thought I'd been clear about that from the very start. As I commented near the beginning of this thread, if the UK is any example, perhaps the establishment of a state church is a good way to minimize the impact of religiosity in the national culture. It seems to work for them. The broader point is that nations deal with the issue of religion and government in very different ways. The US, a relatively religious nation, maintains a bright line between church and state, and the UK, a relatively secular nation, incorporates the church into the state. This is at least interesting, is it not?

The response I seem to be hearing from some Britons is the very fact that the US is a relatively religious nation causes them to be disapproving. They hear some of our politicians speak of their religious faith and conclude (apparently) that the US is run as a quasi-religious state, despite what the Constitution provides. Even as a non-religious person myself, who is uncomfortable with political leaders quoting scripture, I recognize that religion is, as it's always been, embedded into the fabric of our culture. But so long as the Constitution exists, the US government is not going to become an organ of any religion. To put an even finer point to it, I am no more comfortable with someone suggesting that a declared religious faith somehow disqualifies a person for elected office, than I am with a elected official who quotes scripture.

[Much Ado]

Iif the UK is any example, perhaps the establishment of a state church is a good way to minimize the impact of religiosity in the national culture. It seems to work for them.

I feel the differences between UK and US in terms of religion are mostly cultural, and the fact that the more secular UK has a state religion is more of an irony than an explanation.

The US, a relatively religious nation, maintains a bright line between church and state, and the UK, a relatively secular nation, incorporates the church into the state. This is at least interesting, is it not?

Yes, interesting, but in more of a co-incidental way.

[Cromulent]

So because it espouses the ideals of, or is at least non-offensive to, Cromulent, it is acceptable as a state religion? The very foundation of the separation of church and state in the US is the C of E.

Times change. I'm the least likely person to be defending religion as a whole or state religion in general, but the fact remains the Church of England serves a purpose. If it was split off from the government who knows where it would lead. At least with it being part of the government we (as in atheists) have at least some say in how it affects the country by means of our vote.

[IJ Reilly]

I feel the differences between UK and US in terms of religion are mostly cultural, and the fact that the more secular UK has a state religion is more of an irony than an explanation.

I was being ironic, so yes, I agree. The point about this being mainly a cultural issue has been my argument all along.

[J@ffa]

Let's not forget that good ol' Tony Blair kept his desire to convert to Catholicism mostly to himself for fear of the public thinking he was, and I quote, a "nutter". His spinmeister Alistair Campbell also famously said "We don't do God".

I can live with the Monarchy's quirks; the same goes for the House of Lords — personally, I can't think of anything worse than another, fully-elected legislative chamber — but the influence of the Catholic church on Government policy is, to my mind, infinitely more troubling. The pro-life Catholic cardinal trying to hijack public discourse is made worse by the Conservative leadership hanging their hats on his efforts just so that Gordon Brown has to back down for the umpteenth time. It's a pretty pathetic way to score cheap political points.

[Peterkro]

I was being ironic, so yes, I agree. The point about this being mainly a cultural issue has been my argument all along.

I've been reading this topic but haven't commented.It's true it's a cultural and historical thing.As far as I'm concerned the Church in the UK should be disestablished as soon as possible (along with the monarchy ),but it is interesting that in the UK religion is pretty much a non event whilst in the US in spite of the great idea of seperating Church and State it appears that problems with religion in politics are quite common. I'm not forgetting the monarch and the church in the UK both have huge undemocratic powers,the fact they haven't exercised them recently doesn't make it any less wrong.
"Members of Parliament are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the queen, not to the people who elected them and not to a constitution. Those who have refused have been barred from taking their seats in the legislature. Bishops of the Church of England also swear their allegiance to the monarch, rather than to their god or their church. Police officers and soldiers likewise swear loyalty to the Queen, not to the government or their country.

The monarch has the power to:

Choose the Prime Minister.
Dismiss ministers and governments.
Dissolve Parliament.
Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament.
Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch.
Pardon convicted criminals.
Declare a state of emergency.
Issue proclamations.
Command the army and raise a personal militia."
http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon2.html

[IJ Reilly]

I've been reading this topic but haven't commented.It's true it's a cultural and historical thing.As far as I'm concerned the Church in the UK should be disestablished as soon as possible (along with the monarchy ),but it is interesting that in the UK religion is pretty much a non event whilst in the US in spite of the great idea of seperating Church and State it appears that problems with religion in politics are quite common. I'm not forgetting the monarch and the church in the UK both have huge undemocratic powers,the fact they haven't exercised them recently doesn't make it any less wrong.

What "problems with religion" do you mean? Again this concept appears to me (even as a non-religious person) to be code for religion itself being a "problem."

[skunk]

The mere existence in the US of the "religious right" seems like a problem when viewed from over here. It apparently provided an uncritical and easily manipulated support base which got Bush elected and/or re-elected (depending on your view), and continues to skew political dialogue and attitudes to sexuality with its foolish literalist tendencies, and threatens the integrity of science education to boot. You may dismiss these traits as insignificant, but from a European perspective they are at least puzzling, and often worryingly reminiscent of Orangemen in Ulster and the religious right in Israel, both constituencies which demand undue accommodation of intractable positions as a condition of their support.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, and let's see how their demands work out this year.

Face it, there are aspects of each other's culture which we find puzzling.

[Peterkro]

Yes, and let's see how their demands work out this year.

Face it, there are aspects of each other's culture which we find puzzling.

There are aspects of all "cultures" I find puzzling and to comment on them is surely a good thing,no? Yes I do see religion as a problem and it appears to me more of a problem in the US than the UK or NZ or Australia (and quite a few European countries as well).That's my view.

[Queso]

I can live with the Monarchy's quirks; the same goes for the House of Lords — personally, I can't think of anything worse than another, fully-elected legislative chamber
I don't see what the problem is, providing it isn't set up like the House of Commons. The Upper House should be a PR-based assembly to my mind. Each party submits a list of people they want in the House prior to a General Election, with candidates assigned a position from 1 to however many seats the House has. The General Election then happens as normal, with the Commons continuing to elect local representatives as at present. However, the percentages of the vote the public give to each party then gets reflected in how many seats they get in the Upper House.

As an example, say there are 600 seats in the House, so The Labour Party submit 600 names before the Election. Those Labour members of the current Lords that are known for attending debates and votes and for their experience are placed highly in the list, say the first 100 positions, trailing down to beyond 300 where names are effectively just making up the numbers. In this example, let's say Labour receives 39% of the national vote, which is enough to give them a small majority in the Commons. In the Upper House they get 39% of the seats, so the first 234 names on their list take their seats. The same for the other parties.

This means that those "elder statesmen" prized by the political establishment remain in the Upper House, but that the composition of the chamber changes every time the public vote. Disgraced members such as Lord Archer can be removed at the election by the sponsoring party dropping them from the list, and there is incentive for members once elected to actually turn up and do their jobs.

This system would also allow all votes cast in the country, even in supposedly safe seats and two-horse races, to be counted for something, and because only one General Election is still needed doesn't cost any more than or change the current election process.

The new Upper House would have exactly the same remit as the current Lords, and could as now be overruled by the Commons should legislation be returned on the third reading.

Would you support the replacement of the Lords under that sort of arrangement?

[IJ Reilly]

There are aspects of all "cultures" I find puzzling and to comment on them is surely a good thing,no?

Comment, yes. Comment and then discuss. But making snarky remarks and then proving unwilling to discuss the issues raised, or to consider other information, is unfortunate. Often it seems that expressing cynicism about the US in general is an end unto itself, which doesn't require any real justification, let alone, debate. Assuming the worst about Americans is frequently treated as self-evident. I'm afraid this has become a persistent theme of these discussions, and a very disappointing one to me personally.

[KingYaba]

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10927596
I wasn't surprised by most of this, but it was nice to see something like this done.

Great article but one thing sticks out. The article said:

>>They feel much the same about the death penalty: they are broadly against it.

They mentioned Pew Research on their website, but Pew's data reflects something different when it comes to America's view on the death penalty.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=272

>>A Pew survey from August 2007 finds that 62% of Americans favor the death penalty, while 32% oppose it and 6% are unsure.

The Economist article, according to Pew, is wrong when it comes to America's stance on the death penalty. I wouldn't phrase it as "broadly against" when 60% of Americans are in favor given that these statistics are accurate and trustworthy.

[skunk]

Often it seems that expressing cynicism about the US in general is an end unto itself, which doesn't require any real justification, let alone, debate. Assuming the worst about Americans is frequently treated as self-evident. I'm afraid this has become a persistent theme of these discussions, and a very disappointing one to me personally.Americans should perhaps develop a thicker skin. So often proclaiming themselves the undisputed heavyweight champions of the universe, the standard-bearers of liberty and justice, while riding roughshod over dissenting nations and opinions, and disdaining consensus, I'm afraid that being regarded with some cynicism by the rest of the world goes with the territory. Add to the arrogated world moral, political and military leadership the spectacle of an administration dependent for electoral survival upon the support of a constituency which believes in the End Times and the literal truth of the Bible while righteously denying any intermingling of Church and State, and you have a perfect recipe for a sceptical reaction. It's not so much that others assume the worst, it's more a question of taking American protestations with a large pinch of salt. It was our turn once, now it's yours.

[leekohler]

Comment, yes. Comment and then discuss. But making snarky remarks and then proving unwilling to discuss the issues raised, or to consider other information, is unfortunate. Often it seems that expressing cynicism about the US in general is an end unto itself, which doesn't require any real justification, let alone, debate. Assuming the worst about Americans is frequently treated as self-evident. I'm afraid this has become a persistent theme of these discussions, and a very disappointing one to me personally.

Sorry IJ, but we deserve it. It's pretty difficult to defend ourselves as "intelligent" when we've allowed our country to be run by such a madman for the last 7 years. If I lived overseas, I'd find it extremely difficult not to assume the worst about us as well.

[IJ Reilly]

I think you are both about as wrong as you can be, for different reasons. Again I will express my deep personal disappointment over these and other responses I have received on this and other similar topics, for all it matters. (Which I now fully realize is not at all.)

[chrmjenkins]

I've gotten the impression that the CoE is probably the best current example of one of the more plausible possibilities for the ultimate demise of religion. In this scenario the institutions themselves do not dissolve, but the superstition atrophies, leaving the churches as social and humanitarian organizations with perhaps some old traditions, but no belief in the literal truth of the myths that originally motivated them. Is there any accuracy to this interpretation?

I think this is more of a reflection of the inability of any religion to function in any capacity in which it has direct ties it to the state. Due to the political involvement of the Vatican, we have seen the Pope acknowledge things like the likelihood of evolution when many other Christians still regard it with skepticism. I think this is a good sign as it shows that religious agendas are being regarded with more intolerance and forcing the religious institution to change rather than vice versa.

As for the demise of religion, it wouldn't surprise me if we were heading for a world where all states recognized the freedom to practice but no veracity in any religion. As for religion disappearing from a staple of humanity, I'm highly reticent to accept that sort of conclusion.

[leekohler]

I think you are both about as wrong as you can be, for different reasons. Again I will express my deep personal disappointment over these and other responses I have received on this and other similar topics, for all it matters. (Which I now fully realize is not at all.)

Not trying to be combative, but I think it would be hard for a lot of people outside the US to even begin to understand how we could have let all this happen. It's difficult for me to understand.

[skunk]

I think you are both about as wrong as you can be, for different reasons. Rather than pronouncing my analysis "wrong", why not come up with an explanation of your own, if you have a better one? I'm simply offering a reason or two for the world's less-than-worshipful attitude to the US, which I would have thought was not that much of a mystery to a thoughtful observer such as yourself. There's no point being hurt by it. It's nothing personal, it's just the price you pay for global mastery.

[Gelfin]

As for the demise of religion, it wouldn't surprise me if we were heading for a world where all states recognized the freedom to practice but no veracity in any religion. As for religion disappearing from a staple of humanity, I'm highly reticent to accept that sort of conclusion.

We cannot really discuss this without sidetracking the thread, and I won't do that, but in short I think there is less difference between what you and I are saying here than you might think.

[IJ Reilly]

Not trying to be combative, but I think it would be hard for a lot of people outside the US to even begin to understand how we could have let all this happen. It's difficult for me to understand.

Sure, I agree with that -- which is why I cringe at yet another simplistic explanation of our politics and culture from a non-American who seems to believe that they know us better than we know ourselves. There's a presumption implicit here which (it wasn't already obvious) I find especially irritating. Maybe it's just me, but the real problem is that it happens so often, which leads me to believe that it can't be a simple misunderstanding on my part.

Rather than pronouncing my analysis "wrong", why not come up with an explanation of your own, if you have a better one? I'm simply offering a reason or two for the world's less-than-worshipful attitude to the US, which I would have thought was not that much of a mystery to a thoughtful observer such as yourself. There's no point being hurt by it. It's nothing personal, it's just the price you pay for global mastery.

Dear God, do you really think I need to be lectured on the nightmare which these last seven years have been? Yes, yes, yes, I know how easy the US is to hate these days. We've talked about this many times before. But I'd hope that a thoughtful observer would take, or at least accept for the sake of discussion, a more nuanced approach to our national politics and culture. It isn't nearly so freakish or bizarre or binary as you imply. Frankly, I am dismayed to be having to respond to yet another one of these cartoonish characterizations. Your choice to me was to accept it, or "grow a thicker skin." No thanks to both. That's no way to discuss anything.

With that, I am officially fed up. If anybody wants to talk about this any further, fine -- you know where find me.

[skunk]

With that, I am officially fed up. If anybody wants to talk about this any further, fine -- you know where find me.Now, now, don't go throwing your toys on the floor. ;)
I know perfectly well, as does everybody else here, that you and many others do not share your administration's views, but you are not the US government, you are not the policy-maker, you are not the Bush-supporting, Bible-thumping, mantra-spouting, and, yes, "cartoonish" target or subject of these characterisations. The fact that they are your compatriots is why you need to take it less personally. You have been happy to make various less-than-charitable generalisations about the UK over the years, about its policies, its attitudes and about your treatment by its denizens, but I have not assumed that your "barbs" were aimed at me personally, otherwise I would have taken exception too.
In any poll-based assessment of national attitudes one is bound to reach general conclusions which do not reflect individual cases, and do not take full account of nuances either. It's not about you...

Obligatory :rolleyes:

[solvs]

Sorry to break into the piling on of IJ because he obviously hates Henry VIII, but:

One chooses one's core beliefs? One may choose a political party based on its reflection of what you most value, but the core beliefs are not chosen at will. Just like skin treatments will let you drastically alter your tone, your core beliefs can be slowly adapted, but they won't change overnight.

Asserting that an individual that uses their brain is unlikely to be conservative is dismissive of a large number of educated figures in a variety of fields. If you prefer not to trust the mental developments of those figures, let me know and I'll compile a small list of those whom you can ignore.
Ok, first of all, I didn't say it. Nor do I agree with it. I know what study he's referencing, and that's an oversimplification of it. It was a throwaway line, I get why you have a problem, but I doubt he'll defend it as serious. Apologies, let's move on. But no, I do think one chooses what they believe. I base my opinions on what I see, and if the conservatives suddenly started to get their act together while the Dems continue to do nothing, I will have no problem supporting them, as I have in the past. While my experiences do shape who I am, I wasn't born with my political views, like I was with my skin color. My opinions change as the situation does. My only point.

Pete Stark? His anti-kickback laws have been problematic small towns where the only practices in town have husbands and wives working for them. Hardly a bastion of thinking things through.
No one said he was great, just one of the very few openly atheist politicians in the US.

Americans should perhaps develop a thicker skin.
How dare you sir! If I wasn't so fat and lazy I'd come over there and, and... aw forget it. What were we talking about? My attention span is

Oo shiny.

[atszyman]

I'm somewhat with IJ on this one. There seem to be a lot of people who are taking the current administrations perversion of our government and applying it to the U.S.A.'s government as a whole as a "matter of fact."

Sure the current administration and recent elections have had a disturbing religious tilt to them, but we have barriers put up to avoid excessive influence of the state by the church and vice versa. The fact that the current administration has done their best to ignore these barriers and the normal checks and balances that should have prevented this have failed in recent years, does not change the fact that our government (as defined by the Constitution) is more secular and more democratic than many of the critics' own governments.

The current administrations bending of the rules does not make our government more tied to religion than it has been previously and we can (and hopefully will) prove that with this year's election. We have the built in check on both legislative houses and the president in that we get to re-elect the idiots every few years and the will of the people gets to be heard.

Sure the people in general have been fairly idiotic these past 7 years, and as a mass we may prove to be idiots once again, and for years to come, but until the Constitution is repealed our government is still one of the most secular and democratic in the world (at least on paper) and gives the people the chance to correct their idiocy every few years. The big question is will enough people realize this soon enough to issue the correction before things get too much worse?

Sure the system has some archaic and confusing institutions, but are they really that much worse than a state controlled church, monarchy, or non-elected legislative branch? Not that those are bad things, they can work well but they could be misused by the wrong administration just as our system abused by the current yahoos in charge.

[skunk]

I'd be the first to agree that according to your Constitution your country should be a paragon of secular administration. Likewise, on account of our "established church" and having bishops in the Upper House, and so on, our country should be a nightmarish theocratic muddle. The real point here, however, is that in each case the reality is not as one would expect, which is an illuminating curiosity, if nothing more. Our religious apathy has rendered the CofE almost completely impotent, while your religious right has done its best to neutralise the Constitutional safeguards.

In our case, I hope that, over time, the bishops can be sent packing and the monarchy can be consigned to the glass display case in which it belongs. In your case, I trust that secularism will reassert itself and the Bible-thumpers can return peacefully to the asylum they broke out of. However, this thread was about the differences and similarities in US and British attitudes, and I believe an examination of the actual and perceived roles of religion in each country is entirely relevant. I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers...

[arkitect]

In our case, I hope that, over time, the bishops can be sent packing and the monarchy can be consigned to the glass display case in which it belongs. In your case, I trust that secularism will reassert itself and the Bible-thumpers can return peacefully to the asylum they broke out of.

Hear, hear!
MacRumors' most elegant and eloquent poster. :)

[atszyman]

I'd be the first to agree that according to your Constitution your country should be a paragon of secular administration. Likewise, on account of our "established church" and having bishops in the Upper House, and so on, our country should be a nightmarish theocratic muddle. The real point here, however, is that in each case the reality is not as one would expect, which is an illuminating curiosity, if nothing more. Our religious apathy has rendered the CofE almost completely impotent, while your religious right has done its best to neutralise the Constitutional safeguards.

In our case, I hope that, over time, the bishops can be sent packing and the monarchy can be consigned to the glass display case in which it belongs. In your case, I trust that secularism will reassert itself and the Bible-thumpers can return peacefully to the asylum they broke out of. However, this thread was about the differences and similarities in US and British attitudes, and I believe an examination of the actual and perceived roles of religion in each country is entirely relevant. I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers...

I'm not necessarily ruffled by this, however it is becoming a frequent theme that because the current administration has been abysmal in upholding some constitutional principles, that somehow our government as a whole is a mess of archaic institutions and methods that will continue to be the mess that the current "leaders" have made it into.

Many critics fail to see that we are capable of and sometimes obligated to change our elected officials every few years and while we may not always make the best choices we will (hopefully) be able to correct our poor choices in the near future, while the critics' own system may be more susceptible to more permanent corruption through state sanctioned ties to church or officials who are not accountable to voters.

Yes it's true that we have made some astonishingly bad choices in recent years, and I'll not guarantee that we will not make poor choices again, but to claim that our system is broken based purely on the last few elections and the poor choices of the voters, while ignoring the fact that system gives us more power to change than the systems of some critics can get to be infuriating. If anything is broken, it's the voter's themselves who seem to find new ways every day to turn a blind eye to the transgressions of the current "leaders" and new and creative ways to ignore the news and keep themselves insulated in echo chambers reenforcing the idea that the other guys are always worse than our guy no matter how insane their guy is.

[skunk]

Many critics fail to see that we are capable of and sometimes obligated to change our elected officials every few years and while we may not always make the best choices we will (hopefully) be able to correct our poor choices in the near future, while the critics' own system may be more susceptible to more permanent corruption through state sanctioned ties to church or officials who are not accountable to voters.Yes, of course you can and do change your elected officials every few years, as do all democracies. The hereditary officials we are lumbered with do not actually have any significant powers within our system, so the difference may not be as stark as you think.

[TheQuestion]

I trust that secularism will reassert itself and the Bible-thumpers can return peacefully to the asylum they broke out of.

Is there a large enough asylum for 2 billion Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

Do you honestly believe Christians are insane?

[Gelfin]

I'm not necessarily ruffled by this, however it is becoming a frequent theme that because the current administration has been abysmal in upholding some constitutional principles, that somehow our government as a whole is a mess of archaic institutions and methods that will continue to be the mess that the current "leaders" have made it into.

I want to see some proof this won't be the case. There is one act that would cause me to immediately and fervently endorse and actively support the presidential campaign of any plausible candidate regardless of party affiliation, and that is to author and publish a stack of pending executive orders immediately and unequivocally restoring the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and the accountability of the executive branch to the people, and to pledge to sign each and every one within 24 hours of taking office.

We have spent too long under a President who has spent his idle time window shopping for crowns. The legacy of executive orders left by this President leave the United States an unstable and potentially dangerous mess no matter who occupies the office until these excesses are explicitly corrected. Even someone who seems well-intentioned can become a nightmare given too much power to force his intentions into reality.

Unfortunately power once seized is rarely surrendered. I expect something really bad to happen before it occurs anyone in the Oval Office that maybe this "unitary executive" nonsense is a bad idea.

[skunk]

Do you honestly believe Christians are insane?Only the ones who thump their Bibles.

[TheQuestion]

Only the ones who thump their Bibles.

I see...ummm, are there any numbers on this? Who are these scriptural man handlers? I had a Bible thrown at me once by a missionary; does he count?

Sorry to drag off topic.

[Qoxiivi]

If anything is broken, it's the voter's themselves who seem to find new ways every day to turn a blind eye to the transgressions of the current "leaders" and new and creative ways to ignore the news and keep themselves insulated in echo chambers reenforcing the idea that the other guys are always worse than our guy no matter how insane their guy is.

This is a big part of how capitalist democracies function. Whether you blame the voters or the system (which deliberately fosters and rewards cultural subservience and indoctrination) depends on how much credence you give the possibility of people's free will or capacity for objective independent thought having been raised in a society that's structured around the suppression of almost any form of meaningful political liberation.

[atszyman]

Yes, of course you can and do change your elected officials every few years, as do all democracies. The hereditary officials we are lumbered with do not actually have any significant powers within our system, so the difference may not be as stark as you think.

Exactly, so our system is no more broken than yours. Every governmental system, especially when viewed by an outsider, is going to have puzzling and archaic nonsense that may not make sense or that will have an "obvious" alternative that is "better" in the eyes of the observer. When corrupt people are put in charge the government can look bad and more attention may be called to these puzzling institutions but it does not necessarily mean that the system itself is broken.

I want to see some proof this won't be the case. There is one act that would cause me to immediately and fervently endorse and actively support the presidential campaign of any plausible candidate regardless of party affiliation, and that is to author and publish a stack of pending executive orders immediately and unequivocally restoring the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and the accountability of the executive branch to the people, and to pledge to sign each and every one within 24 hours of taking office.

We have spent too long under a President who has spent his idle time window shopping for crowns. The legacy of executive orders left by this President leave the United States an unstable and potentially dangerous mess no matter who occupies the office until these excesses are explicitly corrected. Even someone who seems well-intentioned can become a nightmare given too much power to force his intentions into reality.

Unfortunately power once seized is rarely surrendered. I expect something really bad to happen before it occurs anyone in the Oval Office that maybe this "unitary executive" nonsense is a bad idea.

Well the president may not be willing to give up the power, but it is also the responsibility of Congress and the Supreme Court to effectively keep the president in check. Congress was completely complacent for the first 6 years of Bushco, and even now, while harder on him, they still seem reluctant to take corrective action against the powers usurped by the current administration. Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2187811/) a decent start and some steps that need to be taken. I'd love a candidate coming out and saying they'd do this as well, but what gets said on the campaign trail, and what gets done when in office are sometimes very different. We need a president who is willing to give back the powers that were never given, a Congress willing (and allowed) to do their oversight job, and a judicial branch willing to watch over both. We're capable of getting all of this, however voters need to be informed, willing to think for themselves, and willing to ignore the letters behind candidates names.

[blackfox]

Interesting thread.

I am curious as to how the comparative quality/health of the educational systems in the UK and the US relate to the differing attitudes on political ideology and religion.

I am not familiar with any definitive statistics, but I believe the UK ranks ahead of the US in all major educational benchmarks.

This is not to imply a more specific causal relationship than the following:

1. That people with less knowledge, and more importantly, lesser critical-thinking skills, would seem to be more likely to create/succumb to damaged political and religious systems.


Also, I am curious as to the (potential) relationship between the social welfare systems of European nations (such as the UK), and how this might also reflect on an individual citizens' capacity for critical thinking. Does such a system encourage more critical-thinking or less? Does it lead to a reduction in Religious sentiment?

just thinking here...

[skunk]

This is not to imply a more specific causal relationship than the following:

1. That people with less knowledge, and more importantly, lesser critical-thinking skills, would seem to be more likely to create/succumb to damaged political and religious systems.Of course there is another possibility, which is that those who are more in the grip of a "damaged" religious system, as you put it, are less likely or willing to use critical thinking, period. In other words, those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible might be less willing to question received traditional dogma in other spheres.

Just thinking here...
;)

[blackfox]

Of course there is another possibility, which is that those who are more in the grip of a "damaged" religious system, as you put it, are less likely or willing to use critical thinking, period. In other words, those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible might be less willing to question received traditional dogma in other spheres.

Just thinking here...
;)
well. that can get pretty circular...

[Macky-Mac]

.....Our religious apathy has rendered the CofE almost completely impotent.......

I wonder how muslims in your country would feel about that claim? And catholics? Didn't Blair say something along the lines that he felt compelled to keep his interest in converting a secret due to his fear of a political backlash?

At the very least, isn't the official status of the C of E part of the a system that reinforces the old class structure producing something of a socially acceptable discrimination against those without the "right" background, race, school, family connections and so forth?

[skunk]

I wonder how muslims in your country would feel about that claim? And catholics?I don't suppose they are terribly worried about the CofE. After all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
The Duke of Norfolk is the Premier Duke in the peerage of England, and also, as Earl of Arundel, the Premier Earl. The Duke of Norfolk is, moreover, the Earl Marshal and Hereditary Marshal of England. The seat of the Duke of Norfolk is Arundel Castle in Sussex, although the title refers to the county of Norfolk. The current Duke of Norfolk is Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk. The dukes have historically been Roman Catholic, a state of affairs known as recusancy in England.
All past and present dukes have been descended from Edward I; see Dukes of Norfolk family tree.So it's not quite as black and white as you think. I have no idea what Blair was on about, but that's nothing new.

[Macky-Mac]

I don't suppose they are terribly worried about the CofE. After all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
So it's not quite as black and white as you think. I have no idea what Blair was on about, but that's nothing new.

English history certainly has had it's share of civil wars between catholics and non-catholics, so it's not surprising that there are some of them are still around. (Hmmm.... is it even possible for a catholic to become the monarch? or would that require another civil war? :p )

But seriously, what about english muslims? Do you think they would say that having the C of E as the official state approved church doesn't have a negative effect on their lives?

[Agathon]

What this survey really tells us is that Americans are more authoritarian than Britons. They are also more authoritarian than Canadians. That is what the "left/right" spectrum really measures.

[Iscariot]

What this survey really tells us is that Americans are more authoritarian than Britons. They are also more authoritarian than Canadians. That is what the "left/right" spectrum really measures.

Perhaps I missed it in this thread, but I would love to see a similar comparison between Britons and Canadians. When I take a "political spectrum" test that is decidedly American in origin, I end up so far left it makes me cringe.

[solvs]

When I take a "political spectrum" test that is decidedly American in origin, I end up so far left it makes me cringe.
What was that old joke? What you call right, we call moderate. What you call moderate, we call left. What you call left, we... well, you probably don't want to hear the rest of it, it's pretty much offensive to everyone. If it makes you feel any better, a majority of us don't like our current administration, and a vast majority don't like where this country is headed. But the Presidential race is still neck and neck with McCain, who now promises more of the same, so who knows.