Religion Sets U.S. Apart from Its Allies

[Adam's Apple]

Religious Zeal Sets U.S. Apart from Allies, Poll Finds
from MSNBC News
June 6, 2005

Religious devotion sets the United States apart from some of its closest allies. Americans profess unquestioning belief in God and are far more willing to mix faith and politics than people in other countries, AP-Ipsos polling found.

In Western Europe, where Pope Benedict XVI complains that growing secularism has left churches unfilled on Sundays, people are the least devout among the 10 countries surveyed for The Associated Press by Ipsos.

Only Mexicans come close to Americans in embracing faith, the poll found. But unlike Americans, Mexicans strongly object to clergy lobbying lawmakers, in line with the nation’s historical opposition to church influence.

“In the United States, you have an abundance of religions trying to motivate Americans to greater involvement,” said Roger Finke, a sociologist at Penn State University. “It’s one thing that makes a tremendous difference here.”

The polling was conducted in May in the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain.

Nearly all U.S. respondents said faith is important to them and only 2 percent said they do not believe in God. Almost 40 percent said religious leaders should try to sway policymakers, notably higher than in other countries.

for full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/

 

[Bullypulpit]

I have often found that those who most loudly proclaim their religious virtue and zeal often have the greatest sins to conceal. I don't think it's such a stretch to extrapolate that to a society which loudly proclaims its religious virtue and zeal.

 

[freeandfun1]

I have often found that those who most loudly proclaim their religious virtue and zeal often have the greatest sins to conceal. I don't think it's such a stretch to extrapolate that to a society which loudly proclaims its religious virtue and zeal.

The greatest? Perhaps they just admit all their sins and so it appears as if they "sin a lot". Christians (true Christians, not the ones that proclaim it but can't tell you what it means to be a Christian) often admit openly their sins for all to see. Therefore, of course it appears as if they have more to hide... because they don't hide it. Others, like you, view nothing as sin. So your little analysis is stupid.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The greatest? Perhaps they just admit all their sins and so it appears as if they "sin a lot". Christians (true Christians, not the ones that proclaim it but can't tell you what it means to be a Christian) often admit openly their sins for all to see. Therefore, of course it appears as if they have more to hide... because they don't hide it. Others, like you, view nothing as sin. So your little analysis is stupid.

Ohhh...Tell me...please sir...What is sin?

 

[Yurt]

Ohhh...Tell me...please sir...What is sin?

'

LOL

You just proved his point.

 

[5stringJeff]

Ohhh...Tell me...please sir...What is sin?

A transgression against God's law. Something that is wrong to do.

-----------
Sin has been a term most usually used in a religious context, and today describes any lack of conformity to the will of God; especially, any willful disregard for the norms revealed by God is a sin. The word is from the old English synn, presumed to be from Germanic *sun(d)jō[1] (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE133.html) (lit: "it is true"). It is recorded in use as early as the 9th century. The most common formal definition is an infraction against religious or moral law. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered faulty, shameful, harmful to oneself or to others, or which alienates self from others and especially from God, can be called a sin. Through sin, guilt is incurred; and according to guilt, punishment is deserved. Compare Impiety and Crime. Atonement is a concept of justice and mercy, and "payment" for one's sins. An example is found in traditions of animal sacrifice (as found in early Judaism, for example). Atonement for one's sins thought through the agency of a Messiah became the central idea of Christian theology. Repentance describes the acknowledgement of sin as well as the feelings, thoughts, and actions which accompany efforts to alleviate the effects of having sinned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

 

[Bullypulpit]

A transgression against God's law. Something that is wrong to do.

-----------
Sin has been a term most usually used in a religious context, and today describes any lack of conformity to the will of God; especially, any willful disregard for the norms revealed by God is a sin. The word is from the old English synn, presumed to be from Germanic *sun(d)jō[1] (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE133.html) (lit: "it is true"). It is recorded in use as early as the 9th century. The most common formal definition is an infraction against religious or moral law. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered faulty, shameful, harmful to oneself or to others, or which alienates self from others and especially from God, can be called a sin. Through sin, guilt is incurred; and according to guilt, punishment is deserved. Compare Impiety and Crime. Atonement is a concept of justice and mercy, and "payment" for one's sins. An example is found in traditions of animal sacrifice (as found in early Judaism, for example). Atonement for one's sins thought through the agency of a Messiah became the central idea of Christian theology. Repentance describes the acknowledgement of sin as well as the feelings, thoughts, and actions which accompany efforts to alleviate the effects of having sinned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

While I have no disagreement with "something that is wrong to do". I don't, however, measure that by the yardstick of "God's law".

Something which brings harm to oneself, another or both, is wrong to do. The consequences to this life and in this world are the measure of right and wrong.

 

[no1tovote4]

While I have no disagreement with "something that is wrong to do". I don't, however, measure that by the yardstick of "God's law".

Something which brings harm to oneself, another or both, is wrong to do. The consequences to this life and in this world are the measure of right and wrong.

The belief on Consequentialism is not as definitive as Christianity often is where in their Holy Book specific sins are listed. While you and I would necessarily agree on this, it is not right to impose your belief on another and suggest that following their religion is inappropriate. One must be careful to be tolerant while preaching tolerance.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The belief on Consequentialism is not as definitive as Christianity often is where in their Holy Book specific sins are listed. While you and I would necessarily agree on this, it is not right to impose your belief on another and suggest that following their religion is inappropriate. One must be careful to be tolerant while preaching tolerance.

Why would Consequentialism be less definitive than Christianity? Consequentialist ethics rely upon objective standards as to whether or not an action is moral or ethical with the consequences to this life and in this world as the measure of their efficacy. Deontological ethics rely upon transcendental values 'revealed' through prophetic vision and interpretation of scripture derived from the same prophetic source. Bearing that in mind, they are, in essence, wholly subjective with the primary consequences coming in some metaphysical afterlife.

Also, how much more specific can one be than to state that any action leading to the harm of oneself, another or both is wrong? Especially when you introduce the subjective element of prophetic revelation and interpretation so many religions rely upon for their definition of sin.

Whatever religion one follows is apropriate for them so long as that religion does not espouse the harm of others as part of its doctrine. At that point, a religion loses any claim to moral authority for anyone.

 

[5stringJeff]

Why would Consequentialism be less definitive than Christianity? Consequentialist ethics rely upon objective standards as to whether or not an action is moral or ethical with the consequences to this life and in this world as the measure of their efficacy. Deontological ethics rely upon transcendental values 'revealed' through prophetic vision and interpretation of scripture derived from the same prophetic source. Bearing that in mind, they are, in essence, wholly subjective with the primary consequences coming in some metaphysical afterlife.

Also, how much more specific can one be than to state that any action leading to the harm of oneself, another or both is wrong? Especially when you introduce the subjective element of prophetic revelation and interpretation so many religions rely upon for their definition of sin.

Whatever religion one follows is apropriate for them so long as that religion does not espouse the harm of others as part of its doctrine. At that point, a religion loses any claim to moral authority for anyone.

You ignore the possibility that the moral/ethical precepts of a religion would also be the best ethics under consequentialism. I would argue that Christian morals and ethics do, in fact, meet that criteria.

 

[no1tovote4]

Why would Consequentialism be less definitive than Christianity? Consequentialist ethics rely upon objective standards as to whether or not an action is moral or ethical with the consequences to this life and in this world as the measure of their efficacy. Deontological ethics rely upon transcendental values 'revealed' through prophetic vision and interpretation of scripture derived from the same prophetic source. Bearing that in mind, they are, in essence, wholly subjective with the primary consequences coming in some metaphysical afterlife.

Also, how much more specific can one be than to state that any action leading to the harm of oneself, another or both is wrong? Especially when you introduce the subjective element of prophetic revelation and interpretation so many religions rely upon for their definition of sin.

You will begin to get into subjective ethics at this point. If getting a shot will harm my child, but not getting it subjects her to the dangers of disease, which is right? This is a simplistic one, but that is where it begins.

Often with such subjective reasoning you can get just as much danger from a Consequentialist philosophy as you can from a Dogmatic religion as the human mind can twist each action until it is "more right" than taking no action, while only considering limited options. You can also get into the "less harm" beats "more harm", etc.

Whatever religion one follows is apropriate for them so long as that religion does not espouse the harm of others as part of its doctrine. At that point, a religion loses any claim to moral authority for anyone.

I agree.

 

[no1tovote4]

You ignore the possibility that the moral/ethical precepts of a religion would also be the best ethics under consequentialism. I would argue that Christian morals and ethics do, in fact, meet that criteria.

They do. This is one of the reasons that Buddha put forward the Twelve Principals, to help Buddhists work with and understand that another religion can get a person to the same enlightenment. He taught that while another is on a different path it is wrong to attempt to make him follow the path that you do. He believed his was just one Path to the same destination.