The Economist Examines American and British Attitudes

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by it5five, Mar 29, 2008.

  1. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    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.
     
  2. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    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
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Sadly of course, no candidate would ever admit to being an atheist.
     
  5. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #5
    exactly. not would they stand a chance of election.

    the religious views in this country bother me sometimes.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    Only sometimes?
     
  7. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #7
    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.
     
  8. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #8
    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:
     
  9. TheQuestion macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Location:
    Location is relative, no?
    #9
    How does the theory of evolution explain the creation of the earth?
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    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.
     
  11. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #11
    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.
     
  12. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #12
    So conservatives are stupid?
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Now now, you're the country with the national church. I haven't heard any talk about dumping the C of E.
     
  14. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #14
    I would not express it like that, but you are welcome to your opinion.
     
  15. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #15
    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.
     
  16. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #16
    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.
     
  17. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #18
    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&...&rlz=1I7GFRC&q=define:+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.
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    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
     
  20. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    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?"

    That made my day :)
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    He said origins, not creation.

    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.
     
  22. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #22
    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.

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

    That's what physics is for.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    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?

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

    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?
     
  24. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #24
    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).
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    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.
    Actually, yes: Nick Clegg MP, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has done just that, to considerable popular acclaim.
     

Share This Page