Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Thoughts on the US election
Schatz - the numbers all depend on who you talk to and how Christians are
classified as Christians.
Counting all members of all religions that hold Jesus Christ as being the son of God (including the Catholics) the numbers break down roughly as follows. The USA is comprised of approximately 75% Christians, 15% atheist/agnostic/non religious, 10% other religions. Keep in mind that these numbers are very loose because distinguishing between those who consider themselves members of a religion and actual church attending adherents is very difficult in polling. In Canada the breakdown is more like: 60% Christians 20% atheist/agnostic/non religious, 20% other religions. Some Christian groups will claim that Canada is as high as 97% Christian but take my word that 97% is only in their dreams, it hasn't been that way since before the great war. Immigration and higher birthrates amongst ethnic groups have and continue to shift the demographics.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2006 at 8:26 PM
| link to this | reply
It sickens me to hear my political leaders saying our religion. "We" don't
have one, as far as I'm concerned, which tells me that he or she isn't speaking to me....or for me, which is their job, yes? Ugh. Let it die, already. The people need to speak up about this. What percentage of the US is Christian vs. the Canadian population? Just curious, and if anyone knows, it's you, Gome....:)
posted by
Schatz
on November 9, 2006 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
ErickWrites - I have to give you credit for trying but ......
I have to agree that the 15 months that same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada is a very short period from which to draw conclusions of its effects on a society. I was however speaking more in terms of refuting the slippery slope arguments that we have all heard ad nauseam, that would, according to same sex marriage opponents destroy a society in very short order. There are other countries that have had same sex marriage much longer than Canada, same deal there as well but if the issue is given any thought at all, there is no reason why same sex marriage should affect a society to any measurable degree. A small percentage of gays which is itself a very small percentage of society are getting married.
The "nice try" part comes in with your roundabout way of attempting to suggest that evolution is a truth arrived at by consensus building and not fact. Evolution is an incomplete scientific theory, that despite having some corroboration, has many gaping holes in it. For many people, including myself, it is inadequate as an explanation of our origins but a mythical invisible being with supernatural powers is far more ludicrous from a scientific standpoint.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2006 at 3:30 PM
| link to this | reply
While I respect your right to your opinion, may I suggest that you take the same advice someone once gave me: "A good opinion is based on facts." You first pointed out that the legalization of gay marriages has had no effect on your society. Marriage is not an atomic bomb, so of course it has had no effects. Though, every major social change in any society will have one effect or another, at some time. So, just because within the last 365 days your society hasn't felt the effects of gay marriage doesn't mean it won't over the next 50 years or more. Like I said it's not an atomic bomb or a bullet in the head.
As to your comments about creation vs. evolution, I will tell you the same thing I told the last person who suggested I was brainwashed by religiosity. You're telling me that throughout the years the media, publishers of text books, and your government has so completely inundated you with the theory of evolution yet you have somehow come out of various instutions they have set up without their influence? Think about it, if 1,000 people claimed to be experts at something and each one told you the sky was purple, but only 1 told you it was blue, don't you think you'd begin to believe it was purple. Of course, you would, because you would allow the definition of the colors of purple and blue to be redefined. In other words, language manipulates the mind, and recreates truth over and over again.
Though, langugage doesn't effect reality; it only effects the listener's perception of reality.
BTW, before you assume anything about me, you might want to read my profile.
posted by
ErickWrites
on November 9, 2006 at 2:58 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet - we can only hope
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2006 at 1:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
They won't die a natural death. They'll be "rapturized" . . .
posted by
sannhet
on November 9, 2006 at 12:10 PM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger - if you can imagine, I picked up on many of the nuances of the
type of speech you refer to.
The constant use of the phrase: "our religion" in speeches were he is referring to the entire US populace is one example. As in "some people attack us simply because of our country's religion" . . . I wasn't aware that the USA was a theocracy. The announcement of the department of faith based initiatives was another example. "We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time." .....
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2006 at 10:37 AM
| link to this | reply
I think what surprised me
at the 2004 election was how unaware some people were of the religious tone. Despite being somewhat aware of politics and news, my sister had no clue that Bush spoke so relgiously. Why? Because they are Christians who are in church every week. They hear this language all the time. It is a part of their culture and everyday language so they were completely unaware that some of his phrases were very grating to non-religious folk.
posted by
TVBlogger
on November 9, 2006 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Soon I hope.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on November 9, 2006 at 8:28 AM
| link to this | reply