The AP article is really interesting. This is just an excerpt:
Researchers disagree over why people in the United States have such a different religious outlook, said Brent Nelsen, an expert in politics and religion at Furman University in South Carolina.One thing that stood out for me was the fact that so many Americans support vigorous religion-linked political activism. So maybe people who say, "Keep your faith out of my democracy" are not really clued in to what a democracy is really about, at least in the United States?
Some say rejecting religion is a natural response to modernization and consider the United States a strange exception to the trend. Others say Europe is the anomaly; people in modernized countries inevitably return to religion because they yearn for tradition, according to the theory.
Some analysts, like Finke, use a business model. According to his theory, a long history of religious freedom in the United States created a greater supply of worship options than in other countries, and that proliferation inspired wider observance. Some European countries still subsidize churches, in effect regulating or limiting religious options, Finke said.
5 comments:
I think what people are objecting to is being governed by religious principles and ideals. I understand your point; however, part of a democracy is protecting the minority.
sure, i understand many people do not share religious principles and ideals. but to ask people who hold those principles to keep them to themselves ... well, that seems quite contrary to what a democracy is supposed to be about, don't you think?
i advocate pluralism, tolerance, and peaceful discourse. however, none of that means i should not vote according to my moral convictions.
anyhow, thanks for your comment (one of very few on this new blog).
I'm not saying, "Keep it to yourself." On the contrary, I feel that discussion always brings people close together, even if people have opposing views. Wha I'm saying is, "Please don't impose your religious beliefs on me." By all means, vote according to those convictions. That is part of a democracy. The other part, though, is to make no law that cancels out anyone else's convictions. The constitution for, of, and by the people means all of the people, not just a few, or even a majority. The government is to make decisions based on what is best for all of us, not just the Christians, or the Jews, or the Republicans, or the Jeffersonians.
"The other part, though, is to make no law that cancels out anyone else's convictions."
i'll have to think about that, polanco. it sounds a lot like what president kennedy said about his catholic views and his presidential duties being separate. i never agreed with that idea, since it seems to be self-deceiving.
tyson will now ponder and post later.
I understand what you mean. It is difficult to separate religion and decision. I think what Kennedy meant was that he could use religion to make decisions that only effected himself. With nation decisions, though his morality (as anyone's) would probably play a part, he could look at all sides of an issue and make the one that would be best for the country, if not best for him personally. Of course, that is speculation.
Post a Comment