Posted on 06/13/2005 4:49:19 AM PDT by Dane
What we think when we think about God
The Associated Press
Results of Associated Press polls in ten countries on public attitudes about religion in politics and religious beliefs generally.
The AP polls were conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm, in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, South Korea, Spain and the United States.
The AP-Ipsos polls of about 1,000 adults in each of the countries were taken between May 12–26 and each has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Summaries of public attitudes about religion in politics and religious beliefs generally.
AUSTRALIA: Three-fourths of Australians say religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions. Just over half of them say that religion is important in their lives. Just under half say they definitely believe in God, though some of them have occasional doubts. Australians are not closely aligned with one religion, but describe themselves as followers of various religions with the Catholic church claiming the largest share at 27 percent.
CANADA: Almost two-thirds of Canadians say religion is important to them, but most seem to prefer that religion and politics not mix too closely. Seven in 10 Canadians say that religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions. A majority of Canadians say they believe in God, though some of those believers admit to occasional doubts. Four in 10 Canadians described themselves as Catholic and 14 percent said Protestant with others saying they had other religions or no religion.
BRITAIN: A majority of Britons, 57 percent, say religion is not that important for them. Three fourths think religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions. Only about a third say they definitely believe in God, though some admit to occasional doubts. Almost six in 10 Britons describe themselves as Protestant, with 14 percent saying they are Catholic and 19 percent saying “no religion.”
FRANCE: Though many of the French describe themselves as Roman Catholics, nearly half of the French say they do not believe in God or are agnostic. They overwhelmingly believe that religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions, with 85 percent taking that view.
GERMANY: Most Germans say they do not think religious leaders should try to influence government decisions, and about half say they don’t believe in God, though many in that group say they do believe in some kind of higher power. Just over half say religion is important in their own lives. More than a third, 36 percent, said they were Protestant, while about a fourth said they were Catholic.
ITALY: Italians are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and most, 80 percent, say religion is important to them. Yet almost two-thirds say they do not think religious leaders should try to influence government decisions. More than two-thirds said they definitely believe in God.
MEXICO: Mexico was one of the few countries polled where people were as devoutly religious as they are in the United States. Eight in 10 in the heavily Catholic country said they definitely believe in God, while slightly more said religion is important in their own lives. But three-fourths of Mexicans oppose religious leaders getting involved in politics.
SOUTH KOREA: Two-thirds of South Koreans say religion is important in their own personal lives, though only half of those polled said they definitely believe in God. Two-thirds said religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions. About a third in South Korea identified themselves as Christians — either Catholic or Protestant — and a fourth identified themselves as Buddhist. Four in 10 said they have no religion.
SPAIN: More than half of Spaniards say that religion is not important to them in their personal lives. About half of Spaniards say they definitely believe in God and three-fourths say religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions. The lukewarm enthusiasm for religion comes even though Spain is heavily Roman Catholic, with eight in 10 describing themselves as Catholic.
UNITED STATES: People in the United States have some of the strongest religious sentiments of all the countries polled. Eight in 10 say they definitely believe in God, and most in that group say they believe it without doubt. Almost nine in 10 say religion is important in their own personal lives. Almost four in 10, 37 percent, said they believe religious leaders should try to influence government decisions — the highest rate of any country to want religious leaders involved in influencing government
This is true, technically but, they did so at the urging of the religious. The average Baptist may not be well-informed on the matter but, it is official belief (and mine) that true conversion can only happen when a person freely gives himself to God. Forced conversions are fake conversions. Thus, religious freedom is necessary for the expansion of a healthy Church. In other words, if you can't say no, your 'yes' doesn't mean anything.
Any religious person who doesn't think his values should be lobbied for to a representative government doesn't understand government or God the way I do.
Fisher Ames was not a secularist nor a deist. Neither was George Mason, another of the prominent founders who wrote 1A.
You see the divided and sometimes contradictory nature of the American character in those numbers: as individuals we are a very religious society, but a majority of Americans also dislike other people attempting to tell them, based on religious belief, how ought to live – what’s most distinctive about American Christianity is the increasing extent to which Americans believe that they are personally able to receive and interpret God’s guidance.
IMO as a practical political problem this is something to which conservatives need to pay close attention: for example the last time the social conservative movement succeeded in imposing a widely unpopular program on a sharply divided nation – Prohibition – the major political result was that for the remaining lifespan of the citizens who lived through the experience a strong majority were determined not to allow social conservatives to put the country through such an experiment again, and IMO this is one of the major reasons that conservatives of all stripes spent 50 years wandering in the wilderness.
From my perspective the smart move for social conservatives would be to concentrate on
creating long term institutional protections (for example, public funding of religious education via vouchers) that strengthened their ability to transmit their values to their children and communities, if the social conserative movement attemots to impose “Christian” values on the rest of the population I think it's likely the eventual political confrontations will end up putting the entire conservative agenda on the back burner for another 50 years.
Correcto mundo! Yes, the great chasm of deference is duly noted as reminiscent of the big L/little l, as per enlightened and Enlightenment. I am faint from the eiphany of nuance, and did not realize my error. Regardless, who were the Enlightenment secularists directly involved with the US Constitution?
I do, however, agree with you strongly on vouchers.
You're both right:
"The culture wars are fanned today by courts imposing radical secular humanism..."
AND
They use overzealous and caricatured fundamentalists as their straw-man.
Dang, I hate when that happens.
I appreciate your insight, such insight is exactly the reason for the cultural war currently being fought. Yes, remember those dang Prohibitionists and how they tore the Nation apart. Now, please surrender all those ol' Constitution Ammendments to the US GOV'T and hand over your silly guns, so you don't hurt yourselves resisting full on corrupted power. You're wolf bait, pal!
(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and William Paterson of New Jersey and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)
(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)
(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)
(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.
(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)
Excerpts from the bill submitted ny Ron Paul, a constitutional libertarian.
A false assertion belied by my comments above.
I'll live.
In ignorance.
Such is life.
Huh and George Washington adding, "so help me God", to the oath of office, according to you and your ally, the ACLU, should be stricken.
How dare George Washington bring faith into your secular "paradise".
That's like saying that a blueprint for a house built by and large by Christians is a secular document. So what?
Cordially,
Who are these "Theocrats?" Just name one, in the US Gov't, please. Put a real face on this argument of yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.