GameBanshee Forums

Heh, I've been posting like a maniac today; anyway, the thread about door-to-door missionaries got me thinking about other clashes with religion in secular societies.

In the United States:

I saw a picture in the newspaper this morning that showed John Roberts getting sworn in as Chief Justice. His hand was flat on a Bible while he was sworn in.

Does it irk anyone else here that the Chief Justice, you know, the guy who is supposed to be completely 'neutral' and unbiased and representative of the US Constitution, is being sworn in on a Bible?

Is it just me or does this sort of defeat the purpose of separation of Church and State?

I view the US as a religious fundamentalist state. Religion influences the eductional system, health care issues, scientific research...the politics are governed by a moral system based on religious beliefs, and the Shrubs recent exclamation that intelligent design should be taught in school adds further to what I view as throwing the American people into a deep well of ignorance where religious beliefs mean more than reality.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... nt_design/

What's the difference between Shrub and theocracy?

*furrows eyebrows*

How does she always beat me to these things?

In any case, I totally agree with what C Elegans said. The states have become truly a melting pot. Now they expect different cultures to follow the same religious beliefs.

To be frank, look at some other threads.

It irks me. But then again, lately the nation of America has done a lot of things that do far more than irk me. I do expect for religion to get worse in the coming years when tied with the politics of America. Although they say the two are different, you would be surprised by how much they are currently being forced to intermingle.

Lately it seems that al;most everything that Dubya has been sayi8ng in speeches has been followed up by a God Bless America or something along those lines. And the talking to god thing...

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I view the US as a religious fundamentalist state. Religion influences the eductional system, health care issues, scientific research...the politics are governed by a moral system based on religious beliefs, and the Shrubs recent exclamation that intelligent design should be taught in school adds further to what I view as throwing the American people into a deep well of ignorance where religious beliefs mean more than reality.
[/QUOTE]

What? The United States, taken as a whole, is certainly a "religious" country. To call it religious fundamentalist, however, is well, just plain wrong. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what fundmanentalism is (which is, essentially, a very radical formulation of a religious system. Certainly, the majority of U.S. citizen would not be five point fundamentalists.). . You may have meant "deeply influenced by Protestant Evangelicalism." While this is more correct, even this is a gross overstatement and somewhat problematic when we look at the religious history of the nation.

However, certainly religion has been enormously influential on U.S.'s history (as it has many other countries) and remains a prominent force in America (juxtaposed against its declining or state-aligned influence in Europe). And, certainly, the radical religious right has been particularly effective about making newspaper headlines. Don't take this to mean the entire country is in line with their agenda, though. Take the African-American lobby for example. They are deeply religious, but generally remain allied with the left. That's very short-sighted and a misunderstanding of the diversity of ideological beliefs that permeate American culture (it's vast).

As for intelligent design, in particular. The debates regarding evolution continue to permeate the U.S. These do largely stem from religious beliefs, rather than any intelligent questioning of evolution. However, it's certainly not a majority of the nation who is trying to expel evolution from our school's curriculum. The issue of intelligent design has arisen, by a vocal radical rightwing religious minority looking for another way to qualify evolution in the classroom. Personally, it doens't bother me as much as it does some other people. Certainly I think its not a particularly scientific theory, but we do make many generalizations in our curriculums and i'd like to see that illuminated by the debates. Personally, from an academic standpoint, I think we take far too many liberties with what we consider "reality." Perhaps, that's better suited for college classrooms, though. And, I'm sure, the intelligent design issue will continue to evolve into a petty religious struggle.

As to the issue of Roberts being sworn in on a Bible (or the Bible featuring prominently in to any oath-taking), it doesn't bother me terribly. The Bible has become a symbol for the state in legal proceedings. It's difficult to believe that anyone believes that its more than that in this context. In my estimate, there are much bigger issues to get upset about in terms of religion and the state.

Faust says it well. In point of fact, the United Kingdom is by the terms of this thread even more "fundamentalist" than the US, as its ruler is the head of its church, and that church is Christian. Members of its Parliament were required to take a Christian oath of office until the late 19th century; the equivalent members of the US Congress never have. I suspect the US never pursued this course because of the leavening influence of France during the US' formation on its influential Virginian contingency, and the rationalist, non-trinitarian stream in New England.

The US Courts have always had a prefunctory oath administered on the Judeo-Christian bible associated with all swearing-ins. This applies not only to judges, but also to jury members and witnesses. However, it is permitted to refuse the bible and the "so help me god" portion of the ceremony, and has certainly been done repeatedly in the past. There is no stigma attached for doing so.

@Faust: Fundamentalism does not only need to refer to the five fundamentals, the term has developed to include other special views as well, as you can see in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalists

Also look at these poll figures where 13% of Americans believe in evolution not guided by a god, and 55% believe god created man as we are now. Also note that 37% think creationism should be taught instead of evolution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 7083.shtml

This particular poll has a small sample but considering there have been several polls with similar results over the last years, there is no reason to believe it is not representative. I can however link to more when I have time, if you like.

[QUOTE=Faust]The Bible has become a symbol for the state in legal proceedings.[/QUOTE]

That this is true is quite disturbing. Though it may not be offensive for some, consider how it holds with religious minorities. If you look at it like that, it's as if the US government acknowledges Christianity more than any other religion. Therein lies my problem with the way religion and state work in the US.

The question you should be asking is not necessarily whether the Bible is being used for religious purposes, but why it has more symbolic importance in American government than another religion's holy book.

Most likely it has links to historical ties. At the time, the government and the church always relied on each other. Although eventuially that went away, America has yet to become that way.

I truly thouight they would be sworn in under the constitution or a law book. But even then, what book are people typically sworn on in court? In America, I mean.

I know that other countries dont typically follow this rule.

The American people tend to be more attracted to the idea of faith... its not my fault, its the way god made me. Whatever. I mean, I already mentioned that Americans are pretty fanatical...

Oh, yes, and my official welcome, to you, chicken. Or should I call you fry? (Remember not to spam now. )

[QUOTE=C Elegans]@Faust: Fundamentalism does not only need to refer to the five fundamentals, the term has developed to include other special views as well, as you can see in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalists

Also look at these poll figures where 13% of Americans believe in evolution not guided by a god, and 55% believe god created man as we are now. Also note that 37% think creationism should be taught instead of evolution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 7083.shtml

This particular poll has a small sample but considering there have been several polls with similar results over the last years, there is no reason to believe it is not representative. I can however link to more when I have time, if you like.[/QUOTE]

I really should avoid these threads. *sigh* Regardless, the term fundamentalist is a hotly debated one. Regardless, Christian fundamentalism is largely considered by the key scholars on the subject (Scott Appleby, Martin Marty, George Marsden, Joel Carpenter. etc.) as a radical variant of Christianity in America. Simply speaking, it's one variant of evangelicalism. The term itself has been used by contemporary critics in a very generic sense to refer to all conservative Christians. There are, however, a number of distinctive theological differences between a fundamentalist and a Pentecostal, for example. I can unpack it further, if you like.

As for your poll data, it is very unconvincing. Yes - the majority of Americans believe in God. The majority of Americans, by the same data, have no problem with evolution they just understand it guided by God. That doesn't sound at all fundamentalist to me. In fact, I know for a fact, that the majority of "evangelical" Christians would have trouble with that statement. Likewise, other poll data has shown that the number of Americans who believe in "Satan" and "Hell" is relatively low. This is an essential belief of any "fundamentalist." Again, America's relationship to religion is far more complex than you are making it.

Regardless, my original point stands, America can be characterized as a religious nation that is, in the words of Flannery O'Connor, "Christ haunted." It is not, however, a Christina fundamentalist nation. In fact, variants of liberal Protestantism dominate U.S. heritage throughout much of the twentieth century. Likewise, the religious principles under girding the founding of the nation were more Enlightenment Deist than reminiscent of fundamentalism or any variant of conservative Christianity. The lingering portion of Christianity that remain are not, simply speaking, a direct outgrowth of conservative/evangelical influences. They are infinitely more complex than that.

[quote="frdchkn]The question you should be asking is not necessarily whether the Bible is being used for religious purposes"]

Again, this is a good question. It basically boils down to the fact that America has a deeply entrenched relationship with Christianity in a way it doesn't with any other religion. As such, in the early period of the nation's history, the Bible was the surest way to prick at a persons' consciousness. Oath-taking was looked at as a very big deal. Excepting Native religions and a cursory association with African religions and Islam in the early nineteenth century, other religious faiths are new to the American scene (i.e. post second wave of U.S. immigration, so 1920s or so at the earliest). The use of the Bible persists as a historical legacy, these days, more than an actual religious statement. Personally, I view it as being very much like the Monarchy in England, rather than anything else. It has little real political meaning about religion and the state.

[QUOTE=hill1]Most likely it has links to historical ties. At the time, the government and the church always relied on each other. Although eventuially that went away, America has yet to become that way. [/QUOTE]

The US Constitution was, as I noted above, strongly influenced by the so-called "rationalists" of the French Revolution. Far from government and church being intertwined, they were deliberately set apart by the so-called Founding Fathers. There is no place in the US government for religion, and never has been. The oaths on the bible are a matter of hallowed tradition because the first head of the Supreme Court was a Christian and used this. But just as with witnesses and jurors, any judge can take the oath of office without the bible or a mention of a god--and it happens all the time.

Why do I get a sense of deja vu, here?

Why do I get a sense of deja vu, here?

Ditto.

Sorry, Fable, my knowledge of the American constitution is more or less minute; In short terms I tend to stay away from it. No offence intended.

Is there not mentioning of god in your national antem?

Faust wrote:I really should avoid these threads. *sigh*

So should I. This is a shared failing.

Faust wrote:Regardless, the term fundamentalist is a hotly debated one.

This is true. Yet we tend to argue anyways. Although I can see the connection to the states that will be derived from this debate, even if it does not end. You both appear to be set in your beliefs.

As for your poll data, it is very unconvincing. Yes - the majority of Americans believe in God. The majority of Americans, by the same data, have no problem with evolution they just understand it guided by God.

Actually, over 60% of Americans believed that we were created as we are now. Around 30% believes he helped evolution along...

Likewise, other poll data has shown that the number of Americans who believe in "Satan" and "Hell" is relatively low. This is an essential belief of any "fundamentalist." Again, America's relationship to religion is far more complex than you are making it.

Not really, the majority of people dont believe in satan. Hell, I do not know about, but I do know about a poll some years back (Fable, it was on CNN, perhaps you voted...?) when they asked who bel;ieved in Satan and the vast majority in North America, including Canada and Mexico, did not believe in him.

Anyways, the complexity does not really matter. The fact that it is relating so much to your government is. Although its comolexity is what may make America in shambles today... its more or less our thoughts about why America even lets religion effect the government at all.

At least, thats what I think it is about. If I am wrong, Fry (do you mind if I call you that?), please correct me.

Again, this is a good question. It basically boils down to the fact that America has a deeply entrenched relationship with Christianity in a way it doesn't with any other religion. As such, in the early period of the nation's history, the Bible was the surest way to prick at a persons' consciousness. Oath-taking was looked at as a very big deal. Excepting Native religions and a cursory association with African religions and Islam in the early nineteenth century, other religious faiths are new to the American scene (i.e. post second wave of U.S. immigration, so 1920s or so at the earliest). The use of the Bible persists as a historical legacy, these days, more than an actual religious statement. Personally, I view it as being very much like the Monarchy in England, rather than anything else. It has little real political meaning about religion and the state.

I see your point. Again it relates to my post about deep ties in history... perhaps you should read fables post...

Faust wrote:I really should avoid these threads. *sigh* Regardless, the term fundamentalist is a hotly debated one.

If the word "fundamentalist" is controversial (which I didn't know since I don't follow theology) and makes you, I can instead describe what I mean by that term. I mean it as in Websters dictionary:

1. a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2. a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Since I am not out to discuss subtle differences between different American christian belief systems, it is not important to me to use the term "fundamentalism" if it is a problem to you - the aim of my post is to demonstrate why I think the US is a highly religious state, in regime and in the population, compared to other Western states.

As for your poll data, it is very unconvincing. Yes - the majority of Americans believe in God. The majority of Americans, by the same data, have no problem with evolution they just understand it guided by God. That doesn't sound at all fundamentalist to me.

I view it as fundamentalist to believe god created mankind as it is today and created earth about 10000 years ago. This belief is has been reported in between 45-65% of the US population over consistenly over the last 20-30 years. The 1999 Gallup showed that 47% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". 40% believed in evolution with divine guidance, and 10% believed in naturalistic evolution. (4% had no opinion).

These figures have no parellell elsewhere in the world. For references, and an elaborate discussion about the background for my opinion about religion in the US, please read this old thread
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... e=1&pp=40&
where I have posted many links not only to poll data that reflects the beliefs of the population, but also the influence of fundamentalist beliefs on the educational system.

Also check this poll:
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion

My view, based on these data, is that religious fundamentalist views (such as creationism and a literal belief in the text in the bible) is significantly more common in the US than in any other Western state, and that the current government you have base several aspects of their politics on fundamentalist interpretations of the bible (stem cells, campaigns for total sexual abstinece, not allowing gay marriage, teaching creationism/"intelligent design" in science class etc). Also, about half of the population state they believe god created mankind as it is now and the earth 10000 years ago.

How this happened may be an infinitely complex history, which I would gladly learn more about, but the degree of complexity or the fact that the non-fundamentalist parts of the population are very heterogenous in beliefs, does not change my assessment of your government and the part that hold fundamentalist beliefs. Other parts of the Western world have other problems in their belief systems, and who knows, maybe we are developing into a period of religious mysticism (as I heard that a British philosophers thinks). Currently thought there are no religious movements in Europe that are even close to the amount of influence and the literal beliefs that US religion has.

Fable] In point of fact wrote:
Whereas the UK is has more of constitutional religion, religious still have much less influence on politics. Phony Tony may utter some pretentious phrase about god sometimes, but what is written in the bible has not affected current science education or stem cell research. (Also, the population is considerably less christian that the Americans, typically about 20% state they believe in god.) So even though the US constitution separetes church and state, religion has a massive influence in society compared to the UK, thanks to the politicians who execute your constitution.

[QUOTE=fable]The US Constitution was, as I noted above, strongly influenced by the so-called "rationalists" of the French Revolution. Far from government and church being intertwined, they were deliberately set apart by the so-called Founding Fathers. There is no place in the US government for religion, and never has been.
[QUOTE]

The U.S. Constitution is an odd document. It's probably best characterized as a "grand compromise" between the founding fathers. These figures were actually a pretty diverse bag. Certainly, the more religiously conservative of the bunch - figures such as Patrick Henry - were torn on the issue of religion and state. And, certainly, figures such as John Adams felt that states should have a right to establish religions if they so chose (as he would have done in Massachusetts).

But, yes, many of the major shapers of this document were influenced by Bacon, Scottish-Common Sense realism, Locke, and the Deistic thought. Jefferson (who is probably a bad example, as he wasn't actually part of the Constitutional convention) was attracted to Unitarian beliefs but was, ultimately, deeply rationalistic in his approach to religion. Ethan Allen and Ben Franklin had somewhat bizarre metaphysical notions, but nothing that remotely resembles conservative Christianity.

All in all, I'm less sure that the founders were interested in completely separating religion from the public sphere, than I am in insisting they didn't want to allow one variety of Christianiaty dominate the scene (though they weren't real fond of Judaism and the like). Anyway, my point being - it's a complicated issue. Certainly, because of the fact that divergent views of religion and politics dominated the Founding fathers, the issue is fairly complex. The Supreme Court has been trying to find the unifying threads for centuries, now. However, it is certain, that the American legal system does and should not place religion at the forefront (however, religion has as much of a right at the table, as any special interest group).

[quote="hill]Actually"]

Yes, I was referring more to the statistic about teaching creationism in school. I did mispeak slightly. The poll numbers taken together seem to indicate that Americans are deeply ambiguous about this issue of evolution. It's not one that nation as a whole has bought into whole heartedly one way or the other. That was, moreorless, my entire point. Americans are deeply divided on issues of religion and the state.

[quote="hill] Yet we tend to argue anyways. Although I can see the connection to the states that will be derived from this debate"]
As for my argument about Fundamentalism, I'm coming from a scholarly angle. I'll be glad to give you a couple nice bibliographies on fundamentalism, if you'd like. I'm not really stating a controversial position at all. Fundamentalism refers to a radical stream of thought, generally applied. When dialogued with Christianity, it applies to only a narrow group of people.

If you want to use the word in a pop sense, feel free. It is simply a gross mischaracterization to do so . Fundemantalism refers to relatively distinct impulses, exhaustive work has been done to show that. I'm sorry for continually hammering the point home. It's just a pet peeve of mine, as a historian specializing in Amercan religion. Moreover, as per my original posts, even if I were to allow that distinction of Fundamentalism I'm not sure how any unbiased observer of American culture can charactize the society as be.ing anything other than diverse culturally, religiously, and politically. American society is not simply "conservative Christian" it is infinitely more complex than that.

[QUOTE=Faust]
If you want to use the word in a pop sense, feel free. It is simply a gross mischaracterization to do so . Fundemantalism refers to relatively distinct impulses, exhaustive work has been done to show that. I'm sorry for continually hammering the point home. It's just a pet peeve of mine, as a historian specializing in Amercan religion. Moreover, as per my original posts, even if I were to allow that distinction of Fundamentalism I'm not sure how any unbiased observer of American culture can charactize the society as be.ing anything other than diverse culturally, religiously, and politically. American society is not simply "conservative Christian" it is infinitely more complex than that.[/QUOTE]

So what does "fundamentalism" mean when it refers to muslims or other religions? Just curious. Most people say that Iran is a religious fundamentalist state. Less people in Iran believe in god than in the US, though.

If the use of the word "fundamentalism" bothers you I have no problem changing terms, I think I have described in detail what phenomena I refer to. However, nobody in this thread have claimed that the US in merely "conservative christian" and lack other characteristics, so unless that was a rhetorical question, it appears to be a strawman. I just wish to point this out so don't overreact and feel offended due to a strawman

Regarding how one can characterise the US as anything else than being diverse culturally, religiously, and politically, my view is that you can look at anything, also states, cultures and people, at an individual level or at a group level. To can analyse it to a smaller level than single individuals, or you can analyse things from a metaperspective that goes outside of a specific discipline or geographic place. Heterogenity does not mean classification cannot be done at all. Every human being is unique. Americans are not more unique than others. All big societies are diversified, the US no more so than many other geographical regions of the same size and population. Still, we can be divided in numeorus different groups depending on what specific factor we choose to group by. The same can be said about groups, cultures, societies, countries or even historical eras. There should be nothing controversial with that.

I am from Australia, the Great Southern Land, the Land of Kangaroos and Steve Erwin. And at this time of history I couldn't be less proud of it. Johny (John Howard, our Prime-minister) is quick possibly Shrub's biggest brown-noser (For those of you who don't know what that means... you shouldn't) Following Sgrub like some macarbe political game of Follow-the-Leader. Australia has no intrests in places like Iraq or Afganistan, by aiding Shrub in these invasions we have made ourselves more of a target, not less. (I am actually getting somewhere with this, I just like to flame Johnny). Our embassy was bombed in Indonesia, not because we are a western country, but becasue we helped Shrub in his foolhardy plans for the "War on Terror".

Now, after the English Train Bombs, Islamic Australians are being pressured into "Upholding Australian values" it makes me literally sick to see this country that supposedly prides itself on it's multi-culturality, reverting to it's post WWII "assimilation" way of thinking. In France head-scarves and religious iconography is bannd from schools, and I fear Australia is not far behind. I rue the day when we cannot express our beliefs without being publicly, and legally prosecuted. It is the chronic human failure to assume the minority is the majority, especially were negative factors are concerned.

Until the day when we swear on a Quran, Torah, or Players Hand-Book, we are not truly accepting our foreign neighbours...

Essentially, American Fundamentalism is a distinct movement that arose out a response to liberal Christianity in the 1920s. It is a variant of evangelicalism that empahisizes traditional Christian doctrines that we consider evangelical. However, as the movement codified (really post-1950) of particular importance became notions of Biblical literalism and dispensational premillennialism (which are not characteristic of all evangelical groups). Ultimately, the movement arose out of the need to view culture through the bible, rather than the bible through the lens of culture. More significantly, the group is interested in assent to correct doctrines, rather than religious questioning. As a sub-culture, the group has come to represent distinct social and political agendas that are not all in line with all Christian (or Evangelical Christian) groups.

As for how to dialogue fundamentalism in the Christian sense with other variants, such as Islam, it's a more complex issue. Typically, what's done, is to generalize the phenomena of fundamentalism as a 'social phenomenon' that characterizes the most radical conservative practitioners of a religious faith. Precisely, it's been used to refer to those who are the last vestige of a dying past (i.e. blocking the way for the future). Normally, militancy goes hand in hand with this defintion of fundamentalism (i.e. so we have abortion clinic bombing fundamentalists put together with Al Queida). This is to general for my estimate.

As for the remainder of your argument, I won't repeat what I've said a couple times already. I simply don't see eye to eye with you on this. I will buy into the notion that America is more conservative and influenced by a history of religious belief than many European nations. You have to be careful in characterizing the country, though. As I've repeatedly said, our heritage and present is very diverse. It's partially a product of our country's hodge podge ethnic nature, and our numerical and geographic girth. And, it's partially because America has fostered and incorporated ideological argument and diversity into its very identity.

I realize that judges and others are not forced to swear on the Bible. However, the point I'm trying to make is that it is a sort of "default swearing-book" in a secular court of law. Know what I mean? That whole "default" thing just annoys me.

Also, as an avid history buff (though admittedly more of Asian history), I understand that the Bible and Christianity has significant importance in American history and culture because of the religious makeup of the first settlers and the predominantly-Christian immigration till the 1960s. However, modern America is a true melting pot of different cultures and religions. Why should such prominent-Christian symbolism in public life (10 commandments on display, "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, 'default' swearing on a Bible in court, etc.) still continue to exist in a pluralistic society?

There are traditions that should continue to exist and those that should disappear. Religiously-affiliated traditions in public life have no place in modern America.

That's basically what I was trying to convey in my posts.

Oh yeah, you can call me Fry; sounds good to me

Peace.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Whereas the UK is has more of constitutional religion, religious still have much less influence on politics. Phony Tony may utter some pretentious phrase about god sometimes, but what is written in the bible has not affected current science education or stem cell research. (Also, the population is considerably less christian that the Americans, typically about 20% state they believe in god.) So even though the US constitution separetes church and state, religion has a massive influence in society compared to the UK, thanks to the politicians who execute your constitution.[/QUOTE]

I question the suitability of these conclusions regarding the religious opinions of different nationalities. The UK public certainly is less demonstrative about religion than that of the US, but churchgoing is still relatively strong--and far in excess of the figure you state for belief in god, if a BBC poll taken earlier this year is correct. I also question that religion has a massive influence on society in the US. CE, I've lived in the US all my life. I have worked and lived in nine separate states and areas. You seem to focus far too much on the US rural regions, which are huge, and just finding their political voice. But a city like New York, with a population close to 9 million, would laugh by and large at the idea that evolution is influenced by any god or gods, and as much can be said for other huge urban areas: Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St Paul, etc.

As for religion influencing the UK, you will see it more and more. Just as the far-right in the Netherlands has learned a great deal about computer networking and congregational outreach from the US, so is the UK in the process. And since the constitutional mechanism in the UK supports religion's influence on the government, there are no legal barriers to this influence, such as there are--however badly they are pummeled--in the US.

But, yes, many of the major shapers of this document were influenced by Bacon, Scottish-Common Sense realism, Locke, and the Deistic thought. Jefferson (who is probably a bad example, as he wasn't actually part of the Constitutional convention) was attracted to Unitarian beliefs but was, ultimately, deeply rationalistic in his approach to religion. Ethan Allen and Ben Franklin had somewhat bizarre metaphysical notions, but nothing that remotely resembles conservative Christianity.

Faust, are you referring to French Masonry in Franklin's case? I've also heard that he imbibed Ficinian metaphysics by way of studies in memory improvement, but have seen no proof of this. As for Jefferson, he's not a bad case, simply the most visible example of one whose written ideas had a large impact behind the scenes. Madison was another, but he was far less charismatic and visually noteworthy than Jefferson.

All in all, I'm less sure that the founders were interested in completely separating religion from the public sphere, than I am in insisting they didn't want to allow one variety of Christianiaty dominate the scene (though they weren't real fond of Judaism and the like). Anyway, my point being - it's a complicated issue.

True; but when someone states a belief that government and church in fact had a strong mutual influence in a country and government where that influence did not exist, it's probably more important initially to correct the misimpression, than deal with the complex causes that are at the root of the affair. Otherwise, one is likely to be accused of cunctative obfuscation, or worse.

[QUOTE=fable]

Faust, are you referring to French Masonry in Franklin's case? I've also heard that he imbibed Ficinian metaphysics by way of studies in memory improvement, but have seen no proof of this.
[/QUOTE]

Franklin and Jefferson both were very influenced by French Masonry. Masonry becomes a very significant force in the shaping of religious thought in early America - at least among the quasi-intellectuals. Of course, simply in reading his autobiography, its easy to see that Franklin was into religious investigation. He sampled Quaker ideology, and even was a fan of George Whitefield (who was a bit of a freak show in himself). I'm unsure if Franklin was directly influenced by Ficin. He does become fascinated with Platonic idealism, which makes it a distinct possbility.

The largest influence on Franklin was, of course, Deism. He largely comes to it through reading Charles Blount as a teenager. As a result, Franklin actually scorned Metaphysics on a number of levels. Like Jefferson, he basically concluded that Christianity was important for the system of morals that Jesus taught (and the conclusion that the reward for a virtuous life would be etneral life, though I believe he softened this view later in life, to relying more on the goodness of God for eternal life). He came to believe several things about God, though. Franklin thought it possible that there might be one supreme God, infinitely transcendent and indifferent to human affairs, and a number of lesser Gods, one of whom ruled over our solar systems and providentially intervened in history, though never in nature.

Anyway, that's a broad synopsis. Franklin's own views are a bit more nuanced than that, obviously. Jefferson and Franklin were relatively similar. Though, Jefferson doesn't reach the same conclusions concerning multiple deities that Franklin does. Jefferson does become very attracted to the Unitarian Movement (i.e. Channing and company) and, at one points, really is optimistic about its chance at becoming a semi-national religion.

Faust wrote:You have to be careful in characterizing the country, though. As I've repeatedly said, our heritage and present is very diverse. It's partially a product of our country's hodge podge ethnic nature, and our numerical and geographic girth. And, it's partially because America has fostered and incorporated ideological argument and diversity into its very identity.

We have to agree to disagree, which is no problem to me. I certainly accept your specialised definition of "fundamentalism", as long as we agree that what is called "islamic fundamentalists" receives the same detailed anaysis and is acknowledged as an incorrect pop-use of the term "fundamentalist". Also, I am not satisfied to call creationist beliefs simply more "conservative and influenced by a history of religious belief". I think it is far to inclusive. There is a qualitiative difference between "conservative" in the sense of holding traditional moral values, believing in heaven and hell and viewing the resurrection of christ as a historical event, and "conservative" meaning believing the earth is 10000 years old. Holding religious beliefs about things that are outside of objectivity, like what moral values should we live after is something else that plainly rejecting known facts due to religious belief. Creationism differ from other "conservative" beliefs because it is a delusionary belief. There is no way of knowing whether Mary's virgin birth was a literally, historically correct event or not. But there is a way of knowing the age of the earth. Thus, I don't buy the definition of "Young earthers" as merely "conservative". The term "conservative" covers huge groups of christian people who totally reject creationism as a joke and who wouldn't dream of reading Genesis in a literal way. Also, many people who view themselves as "conservative" would still not read the bible 100% literal, they would do some trade offs due to their humanitarian values.

So, why do I rant about the young earthers? Because polls carried out by universities, by Gallup, by interational institutes and even newspapers, over the last 20-30 years, consistently reports that between 45-65% of the US population hold young earth beliefs. So let's say 50%. It doesn't matter if all of these 50% live in rural areas. The 50% don't become fewer because they all live in rural areas. It's not 50% of the rural population, it's 50% of the population. (Several of the polls have been nationwide, check the links I posted). They don't become fewer if they are all over 65, or all have a green bump on their forehead. They are still half of the US population, unless all the independent polls are wrong. So cannot discard a fundamental opinion held by 50% of the population as because the culture is diversified. In the series of Gallup polls conducted between 1982-2001, the group who agreed on "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" has consistently been the largest, followed by the group "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." A small group of around 10% agrees that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process." Thus, the Young earthers are in majority.

I object to the reasoning though, is that a characteristic shared by your current president and half of the population can not be used to represent that population at group level. Either we have to accept that no group, or no country can be characterised at group/state level, or we have to accept that any characterisation we do, will always be group-level generalisations aimed to describe something in relative terms. You will not find one group of people on this earth that are 100% homogenous.

I think you are polarising diversity at individual level and majority at group level in an unnecessary way. Every place on this earth that are comparable to the US in geographic and population size, is also incredibly diversified. Been to Africa? Central Asia? It sounds like you use this argument as if diversity was something special for the US. Would you say that Iran or Saudi Arabia are also not "fundamentalist" (in the dictonary meaning of the word)?

Fable] I also question that religion has a massive influence on society in the US. [/quote] You have a government that has prohibited funding to embryonal stem cell research for religious reasons wrote: CE, I've lived in the US all my life. I have worked and lived in nine separate states and areas. You seem to focus far too much on the US rural regions, which are huge, and just finding their political voice. But a city like New York, with a population close to 9 million, would laugh by and large at the idea that evolution is influenced by any god or gods, and as much can be said for other huge urban areas: Chicago, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St Paul, etc.

I am sure the urban population in the US are as estranged to Young Earth creationism as Europeans are. I meet Americans every day, and I am still to meet a person who believes in creationism any more than I do. But again: we are still talking about 50% of the US population. We can't discard them because they live in rural areas. 50% of the population who vote, who have children, who's opinions affect also the other 50%. A New Yorker with Alzheimer's is still as affected by the religious-based decisions not to support embryonal stem cell research. A child in the rural areas should have the same right to education as a city-kid.

Fable] I question the suitability of these conclusions regarding the religious opinions of different nationalities. The UK public certainly is less demonstrative about religion than that of the US wrote:
Well, there are several international comparisons, both polls and empirical data that I have posted links to previoiusly. It should be noted that church-going is not a good measurement of religiousity, it has bad correlations to belief in a god and belief in a certain religious system. Several studies of religious behaviour have shown low correlations because many church goers don't go for religious reason but for social or traditional reasons although they don't even believe in a god, and many people who do believe in a god, don't go to church for a variety of reasons.

In any case, 50% Young earth believers is an amount that is not comparable to any other country in the Western world. Australia has the highest measured rate as far as I know currently, with 5%. And no other country has a president that openly support this view, and proclaim it should be taught as science.

Fable] As for religion influencing the UK wrote:
I understand your reasoning, but I am not discussing the future since I am a bad soothsayer. My statements regarding the religiousity in the US and other countries are as the situation is now - I would not have viewed the US as "fundamentalist" religious before the current administration. Your president sat in TV last year and said he feels he is choosen by god to lead the country and carry out a mission. He already stopped the stem cell research, and he is openly supporting teaching of "Intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution biology.

Once you get rid of him, I may change my assessment of religiosity in the US.