Thank you for your thoughtful post, that is rare to see today and I appreciate your desire to engage in meaningful conversation.
Thanks, same here.
About half of the American public believes that Jesus is going to fly down out of the clouds and fix everything in their, or their childrens' lifetime, so there is no need to worry about the various calamities that we must maneuver around. In fact, they welcome these disasters because they are required signs that the End Times are coming.
I know that some people believe that, but half of the American public? That seems a bit high. Most churchgoers I know tend to believe more on a passive and abstract level, while those who actively push the End Times prophecies seem few and far between. They tend to overlap with survivalists who may only be a small percentage of the population.
I hope that you are right, but I do not see that. America is far more religious that it was at its start. Islam is far more militant than it has been since the days of the Crusades. The population of the planet has grown past the natural carrying capacity of the planet and a hiccup in our technological support system will result in serious death and destruction. Perhaps I see this more clearly because I live on a island that is almost totally dependent on outside supplies, a three day storm that prevented the ships from docking emptied Costco.
Yes, in many ways, the system is quite fragile, even for those of us on the Mainland. I recall a similar incident in which a fuel pipeline to Phoenix broke and cut off the source of over 70% of their gasoline supplies. (We have no oil refineries in AZ, so gas either has to be piped in from Texas or trucked in from California.) Needless to say, it was a bit chaotic for a couple of weeks, as there were acute shortages, price gouging, long gas lines with fights breaking out. It didn't reach the level of "catastrophic," although it might have been a harbinger of what could happen if there had been a serious long-term interruption of energy or other supplies to a major metropolitan area.
Even temporary power outages in cities have led to looting and complete chaos in a very short period of time.
However, in the context of religion, it would seem that most established religions today have just as much a stake in the technological support system as any other powerful institution or organization. They've grown far too dependent upon the system to the point where, if they destroy it, they destroy themselves.
As for America being far more religious nowadays, I'm just not seeing it. My family/ancestral background comes from very devout religious roots, with a few of my ancestors being quite zealous about it. However, I've noticed that, with each passing generation, the intensity has diminished incrementally. My grandparents were raised in small towns where the local church was the community's spiritual, social, cultural, political, and educational center all rolled into one. But it's not that way anymore, at least not at the same level as it used to be.
I can't say whether Muslims are more fanatical than they were back during the Crusades, although I think most of our current problems with that area of the world can be traced back to the time when the Allies defeated the Ottoman Empire in WW1. Of course, we can always curse the Ottoman Empire for ever existing in the first place, but once they were finally defeated, we in the West should have played our cards better and organized things more wisely in that area of the world. So, if they're more angry with us now than they were 100 years ago, then we might be able to discern the reasons why.
So people without religious affiliation have grown by 8%, but blacks and latinos are growing in religious membership and as a percentage of the population.
Latinos are growing as a percentage of the population, although the black percentage of the population is relatively the same. However, their congregations and clergy seem more focused on matters of social justice, civil rights, police brutality, immigration (Sanctuary), etc. - not so much on matters of Evolution vs. Creationism or any of the more "esoteric" questions that white Anglos tend to get into.
You may not abide by the taboo but most do. It is very unPC to criticise anything that as to do with anyone else's faith. Faith is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the most outrageous beliefs and actions.
I do not see how peaceful worldwide/countrywide/statewide/citywide cooperation is possible as long as the moderates provide cover rather than criticism for the fundamentalists.
As far as it being taboo or unPC, it really depends on where one does the criticizing and the circumstances. I think it's generally okay to criticize or question a religion or its beliefs, as long as it doesn't appear to be a blanket condemnation of an entire group of people for their religious beliefs. That's when the sparks start flying.
I think the moderate religionists
do set themselves apart and criticize the fundamentalists when criticism is due, although it's not entirely their fault that the media choose to give greater coverage to the radicals and kooks out there. To be fair, they oftentimes do put the responsible "voice of reason" out there, but they're so reasonable and soft-spoken, people don't remember them or pay much attention. So, perhaps they could put more of an effort into it, but that doesn't mean they're totally silent.
Can you tell me that the politics and economics of, say, the south (e.g. the "bible belt") is not mediated by religion? What do you think the odds are of the most qualified and best candidate for mayor of a small Mississippi or Iowa town getting elected if he or she were an avowed atheist, or a Jew, or a Catholic?
It depends on which town. Neither of these states (or any other state) is completely monolithic where everyone throughout the whole state thinks and acts exactly the same (even as much as certain interests wanted to limit voting rights and contrive a "homogeneous" electorate). Other than that, the general trend would be to vote based on political affiliation as a more influential factor than anything else. Shared economic philosophies also seem to be a huge factor which would outweigh religious considerations.
I live in a so-called "red state" myself, on the periphery of the Bible Belt - although with a few historical twists which might make us a little more unique.
Evolutionists are, to their way of thinking, worse than child molesters. Evolutionists will, by warping the views of their children, damn their children to a future of eternal torment. Is that "meaning" enough?
But how many people actually think that way? Even those who might seem a bit too overly obsessed with religion, most of them seem focused on other things. They seem to be able to find other things in this world which can give meaning to their lives and their religion, and they don't seem to fret too much about Evolution or Creationism. Those who seem to make it their life's mission to crusade for Creationism, I'm not really sure what to make of that. It makes me think that, either they don't have very many other issues or causes they want to get behind, or they're being guided into crusading over a few key issues which are "approved."
Religion was still supportive of slavery, at least in the south. Most other places in the Western World it had been outlawed.
True, although with the case of the Abolitionists being heavily religious themselves, then at least it proves that some religionists can stand and oppose their own bad apples on occasion. Slavery survived as long as it did in the Southern USA (and even longer in Latin America) mainly because it was too economically entrenched and powerful among the financial elite. The Northern states favored an industrialized economy, whereas the South favored an agrarian economy almost solely dependent upon a single commodity, with the idea that they could import everything else they needed with the help of low tariffs (which the Northerners opposed).
I won't deny that religion played a role in the events in question, although for the rest of the country, it was "strictly business," which is kind of a sad discredit to US history, but the whole country was a pretty nasty place back in those days. Religion may have been used more as a front for propaganda purposes, such as in the idea of "Manifest Destiny."
Even in other nations in the Western World, they might have ended slavery in their homelands sooner (although just like in the Northern USA, they didn't have very many slaves anyway), but in their colonial empires, they still continued racist, exploitive, and oppressive policies for nearly a century after the US ended slavery. That, too, was partly influenced by religion and the apparent desire to spread Christianity to all corners of the world, although there was also a strong economic motive behind it.
American exceptionalism is a religious viewpoint and is the epitome of jingoism and geopolitical ignorance.
Yes, just as "Manifest Destiny" and concepts of the "American Dream" seem to have religious connotations. As for geopolitical ignorance, science is not the only area where the schools are faltering. History, geography, social studies are also areas of significant weakness.
...
Side note: I guess that's one reason why I find this debate to be so frustrating. Instead of both sides agreeing to work together to improve the public schools and make the educational system better in this country, there's just all this falderal which doesn't have to happen. I'm sure the school boards, administrators, teachers, and students have better things to do than to worry about squabbling parents guided by politicians who are worried that their kids might actually learn something about the world.
Sad thing is, no matter if they're taught Evolution or Creationism, most kids probably won't remember or know much about either by the time they graduate. So, why the heck are so many really all that worried about this?
Bombs don't kill people, politicians kill people. Do you blame the Chinese scientist for the death of the school children in Sandy Hook, or the guy who machined the barrel of the gun at the factory?
No, I blame the shooter primarily, with secondary blame to the person who made firearms available to a mentally disturbed individual.
My point wasn't about blame, but I was just mentioning that in relation to how religion views science overall and how they use their religious beliefs to justify their opposition to the teaching of Evolution.
It's much the same when it comes to religious opposition to cloning and artificially-created lifeforms. The idea of science possibly "creating life" is abominable to them; it scares the daylights out of them.
But the science involved in the destruction of life is well-known and ostensibly quite acceptable to them. I suppose the irony is that their "Good Book" is quite clear on its prohibitions against murder, yet I know of no commandment which states "Thou shalt not study or teach evolution."
So, they go all out in opposing something which isn't even prohibited by their beliefs, yet they turn the blind eye to things which very clearly
are prohibited according to their own belief system. Did they think that nobody would notice, or what?
That's why I note the Palestinian Christians and the Tibetan Buddhists, they are the "control" for the experiment. They have been treated as badly and similarly, but have not responded in the same way.
I think there might be an ebb and flow to these things. We've had our own ups and downs in US history, some periods more violent and/or more unstable than others.
Are you telling me that the Palestinian Christians and the Tibetan Buddhists have not experienced widespread desperation and are not under the same duress as the Palestinian Muslims?
I would wonder how Palestinian Christians are treated by Palestinian Muslims. Do they see each other as enemies, or are they united against a common enemy? I honestly don't know if their situation is the same as it is for the Palestinian Muslims, but if it is, then isn't it possible that some of them would support or possibly engage in terrorism? Some elements of the PLO were more secular and in line with Pan-Arab nationalism - and that may be what we're really dealing with here in that area of the world.
As for the Tibetan Buddhists - again, I can't make any first-hand comparisons, but my sense is that their situation is different. It could be that they may not view the occupying power in the same way. The Middle Eastern territories which have been a hotbed for terrorism also have a history of being dominated by the West, so they might have a common thread with other nations which have embraced the "liberation" philosophy of the oppressed, non-aligned nations which have been struggling against Western domination.
In that sense, the Palestinian and other Arab groups might share quite a bit in common with revolutionaries from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The Chinese also embraced that philosophy as they also faced domination and exploitation from Western powers. But in Tibet, the Chinese are the occupiers and the imperialists, so I can see where it can get rather complicated from a geopolitical standpoint.
There aren't any, no bombers of any sort. Let's look at it another way, can you imagine a Jain engaging in terrorism regardless of how he or she might be provoked?
Well, judging from my own experience, observation, and study of human history, I've learned that human beings are capable of doing just about anything given the right circumstances and provocations.
However, I agree that some religions seem to take a much stricter view on violence than others. Some religions might believe that violence is wrong no matter what, while some believe that violence is okay as long as it's in self-defense or some other similar interpretation of that exception (which can get rather creative over the centuries). A terrorist may see him/herself as "defending" their own territory from invaders.
It is also interesting to note that the more violent religions are also the more powerful religions in the world overall. On a global scale, Christianity and Islam are like "the two toughest kids on the block," and they're always scrapping.
War ended Western World slavery in it's last holdout, the USA, but that was small potatoes on the world-wide abolitionist stage. Great Britain was the pivot point of that conflict and it was solved by conversation.
Actually, I think the last holdout was Brazil, which didn't end slavery until the 1880s.
On a world-wide level, things were different - at least in terms of how colonialism and imperialism affected the balance of power and the situation faced across the globe. The ending of slavery didn't suddenly turn the West into a bunch of nice guys. Manifest Destiny was still running strong in the Western USA, as they had to eliminate the last holdouts of whatever remained of any independent indigenous nations which once existed on this continent.
But we didn't stop there. We had to move out into the Pacific - and acquired your state in the process. (Well, someone else probably would have grabbed it if we hadn't.) Britain was also actively involved in Africa, India, and China. In fact, there was quite a bit of expansionism going on, with the French and Germans also in Africa and Asia, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Russians pushing further into East Asia (until they clashed with the Japanese), and everybody taking a piece of China. It would take two world wars and violent uprisings in numerous countries before that stranglehold was finally broken - and even then, some might still wonder if it ever really was broken.
You are right, however, the bigger issues are not being tackled, they are getting worse.
I think one of the biggest issues that gets mentioned a lot but doesn't really sink in is that we tend to talk around issues in this country. At least when listening to people talk about the problems of the country, I get the sense that a large segment of the population fears a loss of "our way of life" in the United States. Politicians capitalize on people's fears and make the problems even worse.
