BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 07:41 AM

We talk a lot, but when you look into the facts of history, you will find that someone else had the idea first, and took it a lot further.


The French Revolutionary Calendar

Robo "Diderot"

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:41 AM

That smacks of numerology. Give me...

Grapesday, Orangesday, Applesday, Plumsday, Peachesday, Bananasday, and Kiwisday.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM

Samstag: the etymologists don't agree. A minority thinks it comes from Saturn's day (like in English), the majority think it comes from dies sabbati and is short for Sabbat Day.

The Northern German say Sonnabend, that is Sunday Eve.

Robo, thanks for the effort, but I must seriously (grin) protest Twosdays, for that is too near to the old word and may violate some feelings. Sevensday also is unacceptable because it prefers one group, the Seventh day adventists.

So up to the next protest it should be Onesdays, Threesday, Foursday, Fivesday, Sixsday, Eigthday, Ninethday.

On second thought, Three alludes to the Christian trinity, One alludes to the Muslim and Jewish idea of God...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:37 AM

Hi, Ron.

In the real world you're right. But what has to be remembered by all is that Bush's margin of victory was slim. The Dems have GOT to field a candidate who espouses family values within the framework of peace and concern for the poor of the US. Bush has three years to step on his crank. The Dems have three years to STOP stepping on theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:46 PM

OK, Carol-

My main point is that for many reasons having nothing to do with this issue, I would like to not have another 4 years of a dangerous demogogue as "leader" of the US. ( There are plenty of other candidates for the role of demogogue after Bush.)

As I've said several times, in 2004 the Democrats were smeared as unpatriotic and against religion. The more you and others push to have the 10 Commandments removed from courtrooms, "under God" taken from the Pledge, "In God We Trust" removed from coins, etc. the more likely that gambit will work again. It worked like a charm last time. It makes no difference that you're not a Democrat.

As long as you keep your views here and don't push "in the real world", fine. But if you do push, the Right will use that approach.   And it works, especially in the South (which you no doubt know since you live there) as well as the southwest, and mountain states--i.e. where the US population expansion is happening.

There were even a lot of Hispanics who voted for Bush last time. It turns out a lot of them, (the fastest growing population segment in the US by far,) responded to the "values" approach Bush made, whether or not they realized it was a code-word.

Opposition to Bush and successor reactionaries will ignore this at their peril.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is also in dispute, as I and others have noted earlier. There's no point in carrying out a "quote war" of "founding fathers", though I and others certainly could.

I think you also know exactly what I mean in citing Doug R and Larry K. They are in a distinct minority on Mudcat, but in the real world it's different.

Reality must be dealt with, not denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 06:56 PM

I had a Grade 10 student today ask if he could do a novel project on Orwell's "1984". I replied that not only was his timing right on, but he might notice some similarities to current world affairs. We shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 06:51 PM

So mote it be...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 06:50 PM

Wolfgang:

Thank you for the alert.....posted....Delay without delay.....working on a bill to change names of days of the week to....Oneday, Twosday, Threesday, Foursday, Fivesday, Sixday.....
currently disagreement on whether names should be cardinal or ordinal.

... Will advise media when determination made which one is the Sabbath. Blood may flow!

Yours in Christ
L'Chaim
Salaam Aleikum

Rib

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

(Wolfgang..my college German professor was explaining the days of the week and the history of the names in German....but when he came to Samstag, he quipped, "I'm not sure about this....I don't know of any Teutonic gods named Sam.")

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM

Let us not forget to change the names of the days of the week, named after old Pagan gods.

Wednesday (Odin's day): how can you expect a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a secularist expect to use such names loaden with of one particular religion's sybols and gods.
Friday (Freia's day), Thursday (Thor's day), Saturday...

Same right of course for the names of some months: Januarius (heavens beware) is unacceptable as the name of a month for all followers of other (or no) cults. September, October, November, December are truly PC-names. All other months should be named the same way.

Not to forget the stars: Why should we keep Orion (a Greek half god) as the name for one star set. That's as wrong as keeping Cassiopeia. Pleiades, however, is a good name, and can be kept.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 11:12 PM

Yeah, I rarely agree with CarolC, but if she ain't a lawyer, it shows she's got some principles, howsomever deep they buried be!











(with apologies to the many fine members of the legal profession currently using mudcat)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 10:07 PM

Goddammit CarolC ... I wish you would stop making sense.

I spent a good two hours digesting the contents of this thread when I only meant to give it a look-see. I could've been practicing my instrument instead.

Are there lawyers or jurists in the legal system who can defend an opinion with fervent tenacity and righteousness as well as CarolC? asks this GUEST rhetorically. Damned too few, sorry to say.

Keep on keepin' on.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 03:59 PM

(have you read the "Destruction of Justice" thread yet? I hope you see how these issues are connected....)

Good point, Bill. What people like Mr. Davies are calling a "backlash", people like you and I tend to see more as a "ratchet job".

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 03:12 PM

(have you read the "Destruction of Justice" thread yet? I hope you see how these issues are connected....)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 03:09 PM

"way down the scale of discrimination and harm."

yep, Ron...I agree. As you have noticed, I am not out doing a Carrie Nation number on wall plaques. But "down the scale" is not OFF the scale. Wrong is wrong, even if it is not "clear and present danger".

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 01:37 PM

It's just very interesting that sympathizing with you, agreeing your treatment by that so-called attorney was abominable, suggesting that the local legal aid society should have been able to help, is all not enough for you.

How about just accepting that Christianity is one religion among many, with the same, but no more rights in this country than any other religion? That would suit me much more than sympathizing with me about what a lousy lawyer that attorney was.

There should be room for moderates in this discussion. But moderation doesn't seem to be a big part of your world view.

Not according to your definition of moderate, which seems to be whatever you decide it is. I happen to think that what I said in my first response in this post is an excellent example of moderation.

If the US is polarized between the Jerry Falwells and the absolutist secularists such as you seem so far to be, it's no wonder there's so much bad feeling.

I am not a secularist in my own spiritual life. But don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda. It's the public sphere that I maintain is secular, and the Constitution of the United States provides the basis for my stance in this regard.

The main problem as I see it is that the Neanderthal Right is very well organized and funded. The rest of us therefore should try to find a middle ground we can defend and not squabble so much among ourselves. The problem with your quixotic quest to expunge religion from public life is that it unites the opposition without any benefit to your side. You show every sign of playing into the hands of the demogogues (again).

You keep pulling accusations against me out of your little magician's hat that really don't have anything at all to do with me or what I have said or done or what I am saying or doing. I don't know where you are getting these ideas, but they really are quite fantastic. Which "quixotic quest" are you referring to?

I'm sure Doug R, Larry K etc. are applauding you every step of the way.

I think they can speak for themselves. In fact, I'm sure they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 01:18 PM

It's just very interesting that sympathizing with you, agreeing your treatment by that so-called attorney was abominable, suggesting that the local legal aid society should have been able to help, is all not enough for you.

There should be room for moderates in this discussion. But moderation doesn't seem to be a big part of your world view.

If the US is polarized between the Jerry Falwells and the absolutist secularists such as you seem so far to be, it's no wonder there's so much bad feeling.

The main problem as I see it is that the Neanderthal Right is very well organized and funded. The rest of us therefore should try to find a middle ground we can defend and not squabble so much among ourselves. The problem with your quixotic quest to expunge religion from public life is that it unites the opposition without any benefit to your side. You show every sign of playing into the hands of the demogogues (again).

I'm sure Doug R, Larry K etc. are applauding you every step of the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:16 PM

So anybody who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you is "part of the problem". Very revealing.

Anybody Ron? As far as I can see, you're the only person in this thread about whom I have made such a statement. I find it much more revealing that you would be so dishonest as to suggest that just because I have said that you are a part of the problem, that means I have said that everyone who disagrees with me is a part of the problem. How does that commandment go... the one about not bearing false witness? Looks like maybe you need to spend some time brushing up on your commandments.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:01 PM

Carol--

So anybody who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you is "part of the problem". Very revealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 11:53 AM

I'm sorry for your treatment at the hands of that idiot bigoted fundamentalist, who not only cannot be seen as typical of people of faith, but also has no claim to even be called a lawyer. (Even watching "Perry Mason" you would learn a lawyer is not supposed to ask a question in court unless he knows the answer. That fool had no idea how you would answer the question about the book.)

But the problem is that it wasn't just that one attorney (whom, I agree, shouldn't be an attorney... so why is he?). It was a whole cultural mindset of the area in which I lived. The attorney, the Judge who accepted the case, the various people in the community who sided with the attorney who took me to court. The Christian right has a very firm grip on the whole cultural and political climate of that area. Even the few Jews who live there are keep a very low profile about their religion. It is not a freedom of expression or freedom to practice their own religion issue when the religious right expects to be able to have power over other people in their midst, rather than just being good Christians with regard to their own behavior.

who not only cannot be seen as typical of people of faith

You say "people of faith" as though you think Christians are the only people whose spiritual beliefs qualify as "faith".

I agree that there are as many kinds of Christians as there are Christians. My husband is of the sort who prefer to mind their own business and to give other peope the benefit of the doubt (what I would tend to see as a genuinely "Christian" attitude). Christians like my husband are not the problem. It's the Christians who believe they have a divinely ordained right to meddle in the lives of others who are the problem. There really isn't anything you can tell me about these kinds of fundamentalists that I don't already know. And I must say, that attorney really is very typical of a significant percentage of fundamentalists. My own mother was a fundamentalist, and some other members of my family are as well. At my mother's funeral, the pastor spent at least fifteen minutes beating us over the head with exortations to join his church or burn in hell. And he was a Presbytarian minister. That's utterly dispicable behavior, in my opinion. And I told him so after the funeral. He looked a bit puzzled at first, and then he just made it clear that he didn't really care because, as far as he was concerned, he was right and I was wrong.

However, in your post of 8 Oct 2005 10:06, you're stretching. Does not compute. That sort of reasoning is why I am not a Democrat. Though for damn sure no Bushite either.

I assume you mean 8, April, and not October, Ron. It may not compute for you, but then you don't seem to understand the problem. And I wouldn't really expect you to. I would have to say, based on what I have seen in your posts to this thread, you appear to be a part of the problem. And I am not a Democrat, either.

You really should be reimbursed court costs--can't a legal aid society help?

No, they would not help. But it was more than ten years ago. I have moved on with my life, and chalked the whole thing up to experience. I do not expect to ever be reimbursed for any of it.

I don't think the posting of the 10 Commandments will be determined to favor one religion over another by the Supreme Court.

We shall see.

Avoiding that was the goal of the First Amendment, as I said earlier--primarily to avoid the Church of England situation, with its particularly noxious Test Act, etc. The point never was to expunge religion from public life.

Well, now that I understand (from what I have learned from Dave) that Pagans are well represented in the symbolism and in the philosophy of the legal system in the US, I guess maybe you're right about that. But we'll have to stop calling the foundation of our society and form of government "Judeo-Christian", because it is quite clearly just as much Pagan as it is Judeo-Christian

You are not only bashing your head against a brick wall, but you have also disturbed a very large hornets' nest on the wall.

Sometimes you have to get the hornets out of the nest before you can knock it down. And I'm quite used to bashing my head against brick walls. If I weren't ever willing to make the attempt, brick wall or no brick wall, I never would have won either the custody battle, or the home schooling battle. Both of them were lost causes. But I let my "faith" carry me through and, in the end, my faith did not let me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 10:54 AM

Apologies, the previous post was mine. I dropped my cookie and had to pick it up off the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 08:35 AM

Amos You Wrote:

The premise of our republic is that educate individuals CAN be trusted to think through their own ethics questions without dogma.

Why distrust individuals empowered with information?

Why might we need dogma on the walls of buildings to guide us? Whatever is wrong with being guided by character, a sense of justice, a code of conduct, moral sensitivity or the letter and spirit of the law?

Those guides, I expect, will see you through far more than any dogma.

There is ALWAYS dogma. For example: "The premise of our republic is that educate(d) individuals CAN be trusted to think through their own ethics questions without dogma."


"Why distrust individuals empowered with information?" it is not a matter of distrust, although distrust exists among pretty much all individuals empowered with information. If you look around the planet you will see there is plenty of information. Information is so plentiful as to be without extrinsic value these days. More important is to have a 'core' assembly point for our multicultural society to respect. A set of values we agree on. This I think is at the heart of a great deal of what we might term "Fundamentalist angst". The Fundamentalists among others are afraid that with the loss of the divine origin of our social and moral compass, our concepts AND our civilization will decay from the root. The secularly driven have done nothing but augment those fears. I think it is the 'other' main reason 'W' got elected.

I am suggesting that the ten commandments is a very useful moral 'Rosetta Stone' It enables us to say "I go my way, you go your way, but I know you're teaching your kids to: Refrain from murder, refrain from stealing, respect your elders, etc.

Without the Ten Commandments, we are left with the law. And a bright man once wrote: "The law is an ass!" Having a simple set of principles we all UNDERSTAND and think well on, is quite useful.

If we pull back a bit and look at the overall view of the situation, I think we see that the 'secular' side looks on the situation as an unwanted intrusion, and the 'religious' side looks on the situation as salvaging a remnant.

Thanks to all of you on this thread I think I'm learning more about the underlying issues involved under the rather simple title heading.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 08:35 AM

"Whatever is wrong with being guided by character, a sense of justice, a code of conduct, moral sensitivity or the letter and spirit of the law?"

a sticky subject, indeed.

Tough to find the balance between making sure that government does not establish (or favor) a specific religion (unless one religion is expressly denying the rights of another) without both implying the falseness (couched in the language of empiricism) of all religion and the disenfranchisment of the religious from the public discourse.

And yet, historically there has been little "moral sensitivity" without a religious basis -- even if those practicing "moral sensitivity" are no longer religious but merely raised by the religious or influenced by a pervasive culture of religions.

And "the letter and spirit of the law" is what we're all "fighting" for. The secularists want to shape the letter and spirit of the law as much as the religious do (and have).

And they have. The secularist philosophy is winning the day -- all public policy is still moving in that direction (which is the point I've made all along about these 10 commandment displays -- they are being defeated).

Every law in our country that has ONLY religious foundation is being soundly thrashed and defeated no matter how loudly the religious might protest. The aforementioned displays, abortion on demand, restricitions on homosexuality. Only those laws that share both religious and pragmatic (the coin of the secular realm) basis are not in play.

In this democracy we all (so far) get to hash this out. But it's not enough, as currently fought, for the secularists to have their say in our democracy. No, they wish to make sure that the religious do not have their say. And they are couching this wish in language that is MaCarthy-like in its paranoia

If I were to make a guess I'd say that one strong reason the secularist so wishes to remove these decades (centuries) old displays is that it is harder for the secularist to maintain the arguement of the harm of religion while still acknowledging our history of having been developed while fully steeped in religion and religious people.

Furthermore, that "steeping" resulted in a pretty damn good constitution as well as an arguably pretty sound government and governmental mission. These public displays that hint of our history and the role that the religious played in it are a constant public reminder that those of judeo-christian philosophical extraction are not the demons that the secularists need to make us out to be in order to disenfanchise the current crop of religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

That's kids what I have tried to say all along, Bill, but got my posts all Boberdized...

Yeah, I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to have SWAT teams converge on every public building riding it of either the 10 Commandments or other scriptural writings...

I have seen the so-called Christain Right up close in my life time in chueches that split down the middle and I've seen two fine men fired as pastors. One got speaking out against the Vietnsam Way. The other for standing up for the rights of homosexuals...

So, I think it is well past time to fight back and especially by those who are Christian but detest the the hypocrisy of the Christian Right and their bully tactics. One way to do that is to open up our public institutions to all the various religions and find those overlapping areas that teach love and kindness... This will not only corner the CR but will have a positive impact on the spiritual development of everyone...

Hey, I don't care if one decides to be a Pagen 'er and athiest 'er whatever just as long as they at least have some opportunity to do the engage in the spiritual exercise to arrive at these beliefs...

(Of course, I would be more pleased if they choose Jesus but...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 06:10 AM

Bill--

The unfairness of having to sit in a courtroom where there is a religious plaque which makes you uncomfortable is way down the scale of discrimination and harm. (Ask any black person).

I think we will never reach agreement on the 10 Commandments point. All I ask is that we keep the debate here and do not try to push to remove the 10 Commandments "in the real world", since that campaign will unavoidably have the effect I cited earlier.

To quote one of your favorite groups of folksingers, the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want."

The Democrats were smeared last year as being unpatriotic and against religion.

Haven't we learned anything from 2004?




Carol--

I'm sorry for your treatment at the hands of that idiot bigoted fundamentalist, who not only cannot be seen as typical of people of faith, but also has no claim to even be called a lawyer. (Even watching "Perry Mason" you would learn a lawyer is not supposed to ask a question in court unless he knows the answer. That fool had no idea how you would answer the question about the book.)

You really should be reimbursed court costs--can't a legal aid society help?

However, in your post of 8 Oct 2005 10:06, you're stretching. Does not compute. That sort of reasoning is why I am not a Democrat. Though for damn sure no Bushite either.

I don't think the posting of the 10 Commandments will be determined to favor one religion over another by the Supreme Court. Avoiding that was the goal of the First Amendment, as I said earlier--primarily to avoid the Church of England situation, with its particularly noxious Test Act, etc. The point never was to expunge religion from public life.

As for favoring "the monotheistic religions over others", no Supreme Court, especially not this one--one of the few times I agree with them-- is going to bend over backwards for the benefit of Wiccans and other polytheists, to remove all traces of the US Judeo-Christian tradition from public life.

Good luck even removing "under God" from the Pledge, even though that's a recent addition. And please don't try to do it until we have a more reasonable regime than the current one.

You are not only bashing your head against a brick wall, but you have also disturbed a very large hornets' nest on the wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:40 AM

Robomatic:

The premise of our republic is that educate individuals CAN be trusted to think through their own ethics questions without dogma.

Why distrust individuals empowered with information?

Why might we need dogma on the walls of buildings to guide us? Whatever is wrong with being guided by character, a sense of justice, a code of conduct, moral sensitivity or the letter and spirit of the law?

Those guides, I expect, will see you through far more than any dogma.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 11:46 PM

GUEST: LOL
John P: You are not wrong, but consider: "They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" I know that sounds like God saying "fiat mundi secularus" but hey... if it works...
Carol: My comments were not in reference to your relation of going to court against the Christain attorney, they were only related to explaining that the Ten Commandments IMHO have some beneficial secular qualities.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 02:01 PM

Hiram Percy Maxim said of his French Hugenot
ancestors:

"They came to worship according to the dictates of
their conscience and to prevent others from doing the
same."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 01:35 PM

Robomatic,
You said:
. . . in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

A statement like indicates that you need a trip to the dictionary and a basic course in logic. You are reaching way to far to try to support something that is not rationally able to be supported: the idea that posting scriptures on the courthouse wall doesn't mean that the government doesn't support and establish that religion.

Why not just have a secular government? Why try to pretend we are getting there through something as blatantly non-secular as the statements, "I Am the Lord thy God." and "You shall have no other Gods before me."

Why isn't it good enough for you to practice your religion at home and in your church and why, being an American, don't you want to leave the courthouse walls alone??

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 11:57 AM

Carol: I understand your point, however in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

I don't find that I can agree with this. If we posit an idea of a God that is equally present in all of us, we can still have equality. But neither premise can really be considered secular.

Even if the rest of your paragraph is meant tongue not in cheek I think you are going to an interesting semantic place to come up with a verb that violates your beliefs.

Not really. I didn't come up with it. It's been there all along, and it's not uncommon for me to find myself being questioned by people about whom or what I worship. A bit tricky to do if I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual beliefs.

It is not necessarily unconstitutional for someone to feel violated in their own mind so long as you are not violated in the common law. For instance, I genuinely abhor the existence, concept, and use of licorice, but that doesn't mean I won't see it at the candy stand and i can't legally remove it because it deeply offends me.
(I hope you don't think of this as a run-around).

The idea, or even the knowlege that some people do practice "worship" doesn't offend me. Nor does finding the symbols of their "worship" in the world around me cause me to feel offended or violated.

But if I am asked (as I was by that attorney), whom or what I worship, and then I am judged and discriminated against because my answer is that I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual beliefs, that is a violation of my constitutional rights. If the commandment to worship one god is posted in the courthouses, and if someone is trying to get equal justice under the law in those courthouses, it becomes much easier for people to do what that attorney did and discriminate against those who do not comply with the commandments.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:59 AM

Carol:

That in worshipping God we avoid worshipping humans.

I disagree with the idea that this one fits the criteria of a secular point. For one thing, there may be religions that involve worshiping people. But also, using myself as an example, I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual belief system. That word has no meaning to me. Same with any attempt to define divinity. According to my own spiritual beliefs, to define divinity is to limit it. And in my belief system, divinity is not something that can be limited. Worshipping something requires some degree of definition of what is being worshipped. Also, according to the what I believe, to worship something is to create a separation between the self and the thing being worshipped. In my spiritual beliefs, there is no separation between the self and divinity. So the use of the word "worship" violates my spiritual beliefs.

Carol: I understand your point, however in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

Even if the rest of your paragraph is meant tongue not in cheek I think you are going to an interesting semantic place to come up with a verb that violates your beliefs. It is not necessarily unconstitutional for someone to feel violated in their own mind so long as you are not violated in the common law. For instance, I genuinely abhor the existence, concept, and use of licorice, but that doesn't mean I won't see it at the candy stand and i can't legally remove it because it deeply offends me.
(I hope you don't think of this as a run-around).

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:13 AM

and you think we have problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:48 PM

hahhah Actually, it was kind of fun, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:42 PM

Well done, Ebbie!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:22 PM

I grew up in a fundamentalist family. They took the Bible 'literally', except when they did not.

A week or so ago I had a run-in with a middle-aged man who came up to me on the sidewalk where I was waitng for a taxi.

After small talk about the rainbow on the hillside, he said, Do you believe in Jesus?

I said, Well, I'm not sure. I believe there was a teacher named Jesus who lived on the earth, yes. But I'm actually more of a Deist. I get the impression that Jesus himself was a Deist.

He said, Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. When we pray, we have to speak in the name of Jesus, not in the name of God.

I said, Yes, and you know, that's odd. In the only example of prayer that Jesus gave us, he didn't.

He said, You're prideful. You are going to Hell.

I said, And you are rude and annoying. You may go now.

He yelled back, You are going to Hell.

I took a step toward him, feeling like bonking him with my bag of books. He skedaddled.

I wasn't necessarily proud of how I reacted. But I am glad that I may have given him something to think about. Or at least, to pray about. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:43 PM

Damn i lorst me cookie again ;-) The above was me ;-)
Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:27 PM

LOL I hope not CarolC but you are probably right I should not have posted it eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:13 PM

My last was in response to this from Dave...

Again, not one Christian is calling for their removal from public view, strange isnt it?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

They will, now that you've told them the symbols are Pagan in origin, Dave. That's all it takes. (Just try to put a Pentagram up in one of the courthouses that is a part of the controversy... Judge Moore's courthouse in Alabama, for instance, and watch the fur fly).

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
Albert Einstein

;-) Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:58 PM

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, "what about all religious Icons being removed"?

A common representation of Justice is a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. The origin of the Goddess of Justice goes back to antiquity. She was referred to as Ma'at by the ancient Egyptians and was often depicted carrying a sword with an ostrich feather in her hair (but no scales) to symbolize truth and justice. The term magistrate is derived from Ma'at because she assisted Osiris in the judgment of the dead by weighing their hearts. [1]

To the ancient Greeks she was known as Themis, originally the organizer of the "communal affairs of humans, particularly assemblies." [2] Her ability to foresee the future enabled her to become one of the oracles at Delphi, which in turn led to her establishment as the goddess of divine justice. Classical representations of Themis did not show her blindfolded (because of her talent for prophecy, she had no need to be blinded) nor was she holding a sword (because she represented common consent, not coercion). [3]

The Roman goddess of justice was called Justitia and was often portrayed as evenly balancing both scales and a sword and wearing a blindfold. She was sometimes portrayed holding the fasces (a bundle of rods around an ax symbolizing judicial authority) in one hand and a flame in the other (symbolizing truth). [4]


Also The Statue Of Lberty...
In Roman mythology, Liberty is Libertas, the goddess of freedom. Originally a deity of personal freedom, she evolved to become the goddess of the commonwealth. Her temples were found on the Aventine Hill and the Forum. She was depicted on many Roman coins as a female figure wearing a pileus (a felt cap, worn by slaves when they were set free), a wreath of laurels and a spear.

Libertas was presented in 1884 as a gift from the French Grand Orient Temple Masons to the Masons of America in celebration of the centenary of the first Masonic Republic, as much as a gift from France to America. The cornerstone of the statue has an inscription that records that it was laid in a Masonic ceremony. It is believed that Bartholdi conceived the original statue as an effigy of the Egyptian goddess Isis, and only later converted it to a 'Statue of Liberty' for New York Harbor when it was rejected for the Suez Canal. The statue of Isis was to be of "a robed woman holding aloft a torch" (Weisberger, Bernard, Statue of Liberty: 1st Hundred Years, p.30, quoted in Lloyd, James, Beyond Babylon, p.103).


Again, not one Christian is calling for their removal from public view, strange isnt it?

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:17 PM

Don, this old saying is worth remembering. "Religion believes itself to be eternal truth, science knows itself to be the partial truth."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:03 PM

John, I'm not saying that all fundamentalists are like my old buddy Ivan.

I was merely describing, realistically, an actual experience. I don't claim that my knowledge of the Bible is superior to, say, the pastors of most churches or to a whole lot of other people. The point I was trying to make was that many fundamentalists, particularly the more aggressive and argumentative sort, set themselves up as authorities on the Will of God, basing it all on their piecemeal, pick-and-chose reading of the Bible, and then, when challenged by someone who is reasonably knowledgeable about the Bible themselves, fold up like a cheap lawn chair and stand there either smoldering or feeling a self-righteous pity for the poor sinner and consigning them to the depths of Hell. As if they truly think they know the Mind of God. Now, that's what I call hubris.

I have known and still know a large number of deeply religious people, some of them fundamentalists, who accept me as I am:   an armchair philosopher, a seeker, a sojourner—a questioner who isn't satisfied with the too-easy answer. Either fully consciously or deep down, they realize that they really don't know any more than I do, and often question the nature of their own faith. The essence of religion is mystery. And to claim that you know for certain eliminates (at least in your own mind) that mystery, and hence, any real possibility of religious experience. I maintain that the opposite of faith is not doubt; the opposite of faith is certainty. If you're certain, you don't need faith. Certainty, provided it is objectively verifiable, is not religion. It's science. (And science itself is not all that certain.)

The ones who get up my nose are people like Ivan, and several others I have run into from time to time, who, not knowing me from Adam's off ox, automatically assume that my soul needs saving, and they're going to get me to "accept Christ as my Savior" if they have to hog-tie me to a chair and beat me with a rubber hose. The incident I described is not the only encounter, by any means, that I've had with aggressively evangelizing fundamentalists.

Now, on a one-to-one level, it's no problem. I can deal with it. But—I especially resent it, on several levels—personally, philosophically, morally, religiously, politically, and patriotically—when people of this ilk arrogate to themselves the right to try to legislate, locally, or especially nationally, their particular idea of religious morality and force everyone to believe as they think they should believe. Or turn them into unwilling hypocrites by forcing them to behave as if they believed. Giving religious dogma the force of secular power leads to things like the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the Taliban. I will fight this sort of attempt to breach the wall between religion and government with every fiber of my being and every resource at my command.

That's my stand. And that, after all, is the basic subject of this thread.

As a liberal (progressive), and as one who attends a Christian church with some regularity, I have no brief against Christians—or anyone—home schooling their children. My only concern would be that the basic "three Rs" and a fairly objective approach to history and civics be taught competently. But testing, such as the GED and SAT, can determine that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 12:19 PM

Ron...I carefully did not say 'prove', which implies a strict logical connection. I said 'demonstrates', to suggest that Carol's experience was an example of what happens when a class of beliefs is used to attempt to interpretate and manipulate laws. Fortunately, they did not succeed in the long run, although they caused her much distress in the process.

I submit that it should not be necessary to demonstrate immediate and direct harm to any one person or group in order to show that a particular practice is generally unfair and tends to support one religio/cultural group over others.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 10:06 AM

Thanks robomatic.

While not departing from my original position, there are some good secular points to be made by the Ten Commandments, no matter what religion one aspires to, whether they are posted in public or not:

That in worshipping God we avoid worshipping humans.

I disagree with the idea that this one fits the criteria of a secular point. For one thing, there may be religions that involve worshiping people. But also, using myself as an example, I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual belief system. That word has no meaning to me. Same with any attempt to define divinity. According to my own spiritual beliefs, to define divinity is to limit it. And in my belief system, divinity is not something that can be limited. Worshipping something requires some degree of definition of what is being worshipped. Also, according to the what I believe, to worship something is to create a separation between the self and the thing being worshipped. In my spiritual beliefs, there is no separation between the self and divinity. So the use of the word "worship" violates my spiritual beliefs.

Ron Davies...

If the posting of the ten commandments is determined, under the establishment clause, to have the effect of promoting the monotheistic religons over others, the demonstrable harm caused to me by the court having taken the case against me by that attorney, could (and should, in my opinion) be used as an example of the negative effects that this promotion of the monotheistic religions has on people who are not of those religions. The posting of the ten commandments is only one example of the ways in which the monotheistic religions are promoted by the US government. But it happens to be the one that we are discussing in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 11:20 PM

Bill--

1) If posting the 10 Commandments officially favors a religion, it's Judaism. But I don't think that's what's being alleged here.

2) Re: your 12:40 PM post: Carol's experience does not in fact prove your point. The question is whether the 10 Commandments should be posted in a courtroom. Carol's point had to do with home schooling. Nobody should be allowed to require anybody to be of a certain religion in order to home-school. Nobody in the 10 Commandments case is requiring anybody to do anything except exist with the 10 Commandments prominently featured in the courtroom.

Demonstrable harm was done to Carol. (In fact, if there are states which will not allow home schooling unless the parents are Christian--not Maryland, we've established--that would be a good campaign for anybody who feels the First Amendment is threatened.

No demonstrable harm is done to anybody forced to sit in a room with the 10 Commandments. (Do you think a plaque of the Commandments is equivalent to a swastika?) Nobody is forced to recite or hear anything.

Harm will definitely be done if attacks on the 10 Commandments plaques energize the religious Right.

Listen to what Dave (ancient mariner) said earlier "To erase something decades old...serves no purpose other than to insult people of faith."

Mudcatters (with one obvious glaring exception) are reasonable and tolerant people.
Dave is very calm and logical, and obviously no member of the rabid Right. Do you think the Jerry Falwell, etc. disciples will be calm and logical?

And remember, they do vote, sometimes in even greater numbers than Mudcatters do.




Greg--

I would be sorry to see you waste your talents and energies on the 10 Commandments issue when many others more crucial need addressing.

RE: protest songs--you may like them, but how many people do you think they really change? They're great at rallying the faithful---hymns for secularists-- but beyond that, the burden is on you to prove they do anything but make you feel good.

Your Chamberlain analogy is strained, and, through overuse, this metaphor has lost its punch. Not every compromise is a Munich Agreement.

By all means, do whatever you want-- somehow I suspect you will anyway. But I'm telling you that if you require of your presidential candidate in the primaries-- if this is still an issue then-- that he or she commit to removing the 10 Commandments from all courtrooms, you will live to regret it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:30 PM

If you search the link a bit you would have found this, plus several diagrams and graphs explaining the denominations and methodology. there are other sites I suggest you look and read if you dont believe these stats.
Yours, Aye. Dave
. Religious Identification Among American Adults

The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the question: "What is your religion, if any?" This question generated more than a hundred different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown in Exhibit 1 below.

In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with one or another religion group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to eighty-one percent.

Where possible, every effort was made to re-create the categories respondents offered to the nearly identical question as in the NSRI 1990 survey.

As is readily apparent from the first Exhibit below, the major changes between the results of the 1990 survey and the current survey are:

a. the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
b. although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only by a very small amount - from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %;
c. the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001 [note 5];
d. there has also been a substantial increase in the number of adults who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference, from about four million or two percent in 1990 to more than eleven million or over five percent in 2001.

Exhibit 1 provides the most comprehensive profile of religious identification among the U.S. adult population today and compares the current pattern of identification with what the pattern was in 1990 [note 6].







NOTE: All figures in Exhibit 1 are rounded.

As is evident from Exhibit 1, with respect to religious self-identification, approximately ninety percent of America's adults are clustered in twenty-two groups. Therefore, the remainder of the analysis in this report focuses on the distribution of adults across these twenty-two groups

2. Religious Institutional Membership in Selected Major Religious Groups

Closely akin to religions group identification in the minds of most people is membership in or affiliation with a place of worship. Indeed, in his classic definition of religion, the nineteenth century sociologist Emile Durkheim characterized religions as systems of belief that unite a group of adherents into common modes of worship, which in turn are organize adherents into churches (or synagogues, temples, mosques or whatever else a group may chose to call the place in which a group of kindred spirits come together to celebrate, worship and recognize the commonality of their beliefs) [note 7].

More than half (54%) of the adult population in America reside in a household where either they themselves or someone else belongs to a church, or temple, synagogue or mosque or some other type of place of worship. To be sure, the significance of membership (its importance, its criteria, and even its definition) varies greatly from one denomination or faith to another. This study is not in position to evaluate the meaning or importance of religious institutional membership for particular groups.

On the other hand, given that about eighty percent of adults identify with some religious group, there appears to be a considerable gap between "identification" with a religion and reported "membership" or "belonging" to a an institutional embodiment of that faith community. That difference between religious identification and belonging could well contain the seeds of a potent cultural shift in which religion means something quite different to those who adhere to one from those who see themselves as the institutional custodians of one.

More than thirty years ago, the sociologist Thomas Luckmann anticipated the emergence of an increasingly de-institutionalized form of religious identification in an incisive analysis of modern religious life, The Invisible Religion. In that work he concluded: "The modern sacred cosmos legitimates the retreat of the individual into the 'private sphere' and sanctifies his (or her) subjective autonomy." [note 8]

Luckmann's analysis notwithstanding, aggregated survey data from the General Social Survey 1972-1994 showed a persistence of church membership among a somewhat larger percentage of U.S. adults than found in the current study. Among a nationally representative sample of 1,481 American adults surveyed in by GSS between the early 1970s and the early 1990s, 61% had indicated membership in a church.

The decade of the nineties appears to have been a period in which religious institutional membership slid, underscoring what Luckmann described as the rise of "invisible religion."

Exhibit 2 below describes the varied pattern of religious institutional membership among the twenty-two largest religious groups - including "no religion," which is the choice made by a very large number. Except where otherwise noted, we have limited our analyses to these twenty-two groups, which encompass nearly 190 million adults or nearly 92% of the adult population.




As Exhibit 2 illustrates, there are notable differences between various religious groups with respect to the relationship between identification and affiliation. For example, 68% of those identifying themselves as Lutheran report church membership, while only 45% of those who describe themselves as Protestant (without a specific denominational identification) report church membership. Nearly 68% of those identifying with the Assemblies of God report church membership. Church membership is reported by 59% of Catholic adults. About 53% of adults who identify their religion as Jewish or Judaism report temple or synagogue membership. Among those calling themselves Muslim or Islamic, 62% report membership in a mosque.

Perhaps, it will come as no surprise to religious leaders, but nearly 20% of adults who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic also report that either they themselves or someone else in their household is a member of a church, temple, synagogue, mosque or some other religious institution. On the other hand, nearly 40% of respondents who identified with a religion indicated that neither they themselves nor anyone else in their household belongs to a church or some other similar institution. It is this group in particular that best exemplifies the notion of "invisible religion" first proposed by Luckmann.

The obvious difference between the percentage of the total adult population that identifies with one or another religion and the percentage that report living in a household where either they themselves or someone else is a member of an organized religious body draws attention to the difference between identification as a state of heart and mind and affiliation as a social condition.

The difference in the proportions between identification and affiliation in each group draws attention to the possible differences in the value and meaning attached to affiliation within various religious movements. For example, it is instructive to note that among adults identifying themselves as Buddhist, just 28% report affiliation with a temple. Among adults identifying themselves with "native American religion," affiliation with a church or temple or some other religious institution is just 16%.

Differences between the percentages of identification and affiliation also draw attention to differences in meaning associated with religion itself. For some, religious identification may well be a social marker as much as a marker designating a specific set of beliefs. For others, it may be a reflection of a community or family anchor point to one's sense of self. For other still, it may simply be the "gut response" evoked by the question, "What is your religion, if any?" without any wider emotional, social or philosophical ramifications.

This survey made no attempt to define for people what the meaning of any religious identification might be. Rather, it sought to detect what those identifications might mean for those who claim them. The survey went beyond the simple questions of self-labeling and institutional membership to inquire about a number of key questions such as general outlook (weltanschauung) and beliefs with respect to God.

3. Religious or Secular Outlook Among American Adults

Apart from identification with one or another of a wide range of religions, ARIS 2001 sought to determine whether and to what extent American adults consider their outlook on life to be essentially religious or secular.

Detecting people's worldview or outlook with respect to religion is potentially very challenging. Some would argue that it cannot be done at all with the tools of survey research. Yet, much can be gained by asking rather simple questions of a broad and representative spectrum of people. While not much will be learned about any one individual or even a single group, great insights can be gleaned about the mindscape of diversity in the American population as a whole.

To that end, this survey asked respondents the following: "When it comes to your outlook, do you regard yours as Š (1) Secular, (2) Somewhat Secular, (3) Somewhat Religious or (4) Religious?" Respondents were also permitted to indicate they were unsure or a little of both.

Ninety-three percent of survey respondents were able to reply to this question without much difficulty. In all, sixteen percent (16%) described their outlook as secular or somewhat secular, while seventy-five percent (75%) described their outlook as religious or somewhat religious. Just one percent said they were "a little of both" and two percent said they were unsure. Five percent declined to answer the question.

The question yielded the distribution shown below in Exhibit 3, which indicates that at least ten percent of the population clearly and unambiguously considers itself "secular" rather than "religious." Another six percent regard themselves as "somewhat secular."





Our interviews on the question of outlook, as our questions on other matters of belief, generated a fair amount of ambivalence, which is reflected in the high proportion of respondents who fall into the category of "somewhat," that is "somewhat secular" and "somewhat religious." Certainty apparently is the possession of only a minority - though, to be sure, a larger minority among the religious than among the secular.

More interesting still are some of the demographic characteristics of the adult population, which seem to be associated with the disposition to be more or less secular, or more or less religious in one's outlook. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 provide a glimpse at some of those associations.

- Women are more likely than men to describe their outlook as "religious."
- Older Americans are more likely than younger to describe their outlook as "religious."
- Black Americans are least likely to describe themselves as secular, Asian Americans are most likely to do so.












4. Religious Switching Among Selected Religious Groups

More than thirty-three million American adults, about 16% of the total U.S. adult population report that they have changed their religious preference or identification. Perhaps, this phenomenon of "religion switching" is a reflection of a deeper cultural phenomenon in contemporary America. In the early 1990s, the sociologist Wade Clark Roof described the increasingly middle-aged baby boomers as a "generation of seekers." [note 9] However, the 1990s were also a period of great immigration and great economic boom. Therefore, the religious life of the nation has been influenced by social forces that are wider and more varied than simply the aging of the 'boomers.'

As will be seen in the Exhibit below, switching has involved not only the shift of people's spiritual loyalties from one religion to another -- which could reflect some kind of spiritual seeking -- but also, and perhaps more importantly, a dropping out of religion altogether. To be sure, there is no indication in the current data whether the "religious switching" actually occurred in the 1990s or earlier. Surely, for our older respondents the switching very likely had occurred earlier.

Exhibit 7 below describes the patterns of "religion switching" among the twenty-two largest aggregates. As was indicated earlier, taken together these groups constitute about ninety percent of the entire adult population residing in the U.S. currently.


Click here for Exhibit 7

The top three "gainers" in America's vast religious market place appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion. Looking at patterns of religious change from this perspective, the evidence points as much to the rejection of faith as to the seeking of faith among American adults. Indeed, among those who previously had no religion, just 5% report current identification with one or another of the major religions.

Some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear to attract a large number of converts ("in-switchers"), but also nearly as large a number of apostates ("out-switchers"). It is also interesting to note that Buddhists also fall into this category of what one might call high-turnover religious groups.

5. Marital Status Among Selected Religious Groups

In most people's minds there is a close association between religious belonging and family values, though to be sure that latter concept is often quite vague as to its meaning. For both demographic and sociological reasons, the present study also focused on household structure, marital status and the religious composition of households.

As context for a discussion of the marital status patterns of different religious groups, it should be noted that the U.S. Census reports the following distribution for the marital status of Americans aged fifteen or older.



US CENSUS FACT BOX I

Married 115,580,691 54%
Single, never married 58,049,225 27%
Separated 4,795,275 2%
Divorced 21,365,741 10%
Widowed 13,887,524 7%
TOTAL 213,678,456 100%
Source: USCensus QT-02 Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 (American Fact Finder)




Because ARIS 2001 has defined its survey population as "adults 18 or over" its distribution varies slightly from that of the US Census, which recorded marital status information for all people aged fifteen or older. In addition, as the fact box below shows, ARIS also included an additional category for "single, living with partner." It also recorded those who refused to supply marital status information.



ARIS 2001 FACT BOX 2 (Weighted Estimate)

Married 122,053,785 59%
Single, never married 40,914,395 20%
Single, living with partner 11,101,951 5%
Separated 3,431,149 2%
Divorced 15,005,207 7%
Widowed 12,502,674 6%
Refused info 2,959,032 1%
   TOTAL 207,968,192 100%




Exhibit 8 below draws attention to the variations among the different religious groups with regard to household structure.


Click here for Exhibit 8


The data in Exhibit 8 underscore the accuracy of conventional wisdom in the main: those who identify with one or another of the main religious groups are considerably more likely to be married than those who have no religion. Particularly the "no religion" group was far more likely to be either single, never married or single, living with a partner than any other group. Indeed, the "no religion" group shows the lowest incidence of marriage (just 19%) of all twenty-two groups. In sharp contrast, those identifying with the Assemblies of God or Evangelical/Born Again Christians show the highest proportions married, 73% and 74% respectively.

The percent currently divorced or separated varies considerably less, from a low of six percent (Jehovah's Witnesses) to a high of fourteen percent (Pentecostals).

In Exhibit 9 the study looks at the patterns of divorce and separation between 1990-2001 across the twenty-two religious self-identification groups. While this comparison offers no dramatic changes over the past eleven years, it does underscore the constancy of most of the patterns.


Click here for Exhibit 9


6. Mixed Religion Families Among Selected Religious Groups

Much as normative marriage patterns serve as a sociological buttress to traditional religious identification and belonging, they may also mask underlying change. As we noted earlier, ARIS2001 shows substantial shifts toward secularism among a large number of American adults.

Therefore in this section of the report we look at the incidence of marriage across religious lines. We should add that ARIS2001 is the first national survey that has looked at the religious composition of marriage and domestic partners in large enough numbers to be able to make generalizations among different groups. Because of the size of our sample and the nature of our questions, this survey has generated a wealth of data that will require much further mining with regard to issues pertaining to interfaith households.

ARIS2001 found that of all households that contained either a married or domestic partner couple, 22% reported a mixture of religious identification amongst the couple. At the low end there are the Mormon adults who are found in mixed religion families at 12% and such other groups as Baptists, those adhering to the Churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, the Evangelicals and those adhering to the Church of God (all at about 18%). At the high end we find the Episcopalians at 42% and Buddhists at 39% living in mixed religion families. In all, about 28 million American married or otherwise "coupled" adults live in a mixed religion household.


Click here for Exhibit 10

7. Age and Gender Patterns Among Selected Religious Groups

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of age and sex either in the life of the individual or in the life of any group. Personal outlook is often deeply influenced by these two rather obvious personal attributes. The future of a group is also often shaped by the relative distribution of the old and the young and the relative proportions of males and females. Therefore Exhibits 11 and 12 explore these demographic patterns in the current survey, and for comparison purposes in NSRI 1990.








As in 1990 so too in the current study, the Buddhist and Muslim population appears to have the highest proportion of young adults under age thirty, and the lowest percentage of females. A number of the major Christian groups have aged since 1990, most notably the Catholics, Methodists, and Lutherans. Congregationalist/United Church of Christ and Presbyterian adherents show an older age structure with three times as many over age 65 as under age 35. Baptists also have fewer young adults than they had in 1990. Among Jews the ratio of the over-65 to those under-thirty has shifted from nearly even in 1990 to about 2:1 in the current study. It should be noted, again, that this survey has focused only upon adult adherents. The observations about age structure do not include the children who may be present in the household of adult adherents.


8. Race and Ethnicity Among Selected Religious Groups

Although the ideals faith are supposed unite people across the great chasms carved by race and ethnicity, social scientists have long noted the in a manner of speaking "Sunday morning service is the most segregated hour in America." ARIS2001 addressed the interplay between faith, ethnicity and race by inquiring into each component of those who were surveyed.


Click here for Exhibit 13


Exhibit 13 describes the make-up of each of the twenty-two major religious groups in terms of proportion non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Asian or Hispanic or something else. It should be noted that these characterizations were provided by respondents as answers to fairly straight forward objective questions.

- "Would you consider yourself to be White, Black, or of some other race?"
- "Are you of Hispanic origin or background?"

9. Political Party Preference Among Selected Religious Groups

Given the current debates over a wide variety of public policy issues in which religious convictions and principles are thought to be of some consequence, this study sought to determine with generally broad brushstrokes to what extent religious groups might differ with respect to the political party preferences of their adherents. Exhibit 14 below describes that pattern.


Click here for Exhibit 14


To be sure, political party preferences probably fluctuate more than do religious preferences. It is especially difficult to determine from survey data the extent to which political party preferences are influenced by the heat of the most recent elections. Those caveats aside, the data in Exhibit 14 point to some important continuities as well as shifts.

Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and those with no religion continue to have a greater preference for the Democratic party over the Republican - much as they did in 1990. Evangelical or Born Again Christians and Mormons are the most apt to identify as Republicans. Buddhists and those with no religion are most likely to be political independents. In keeping with their theology, Jehovah's Witnesses disavow political involvement.


10. State and Faith

The final section of this report pays due recognition to the fact that America is also the United States - a name which often masks as much diversity as it portrays unity. With respect to religion in particular, states differ considerably in the religious make-up of their populace. That diversity is likely to contribute as much as any other source of social variation to differences in their cultural and political climate.



















Despite the growing diversity nationally, some religious groups clearly occupy a dominant demographic position in particular states. For instance, Catholics are the majority of the population in Massachusetts and Maine as are Mormons in Utah and Baptists in Mississippi. Catholics comprise over 40% of Vermont, New Mexico, New York and New Jersey, while Baptists are over 40% in a number of southern states such as South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.

Historical traces of the Bible belt in the South and an irreligious West are still evident. Those with "no religion" constitute the largest group in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming. In contrast, the percentage of adults who adhere to "no religion" is below 10 % in North and South Dakota, the Carolinas, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Such religious concentrations might well have significant impact on host of public policy issues as well as on such matters as religious-based philanthropy.

It remains the challenge of further explorations of these and related data to discover the complex ways in which the religious identification patterns of the American populace shapes the culture and fate of the United States.


Notes:

5 The growth in the "no religion" population appears to be reflecting a patterns that has also been noted widely in England.

6 Barry A. Kosmin & Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary America (New York: Harmony Books, 1993)

7 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1955).

8 Thomas Luckmann, The Invisible Religion (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1967).

9 Wade Clark Roof, A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation (San Francisco: Harper, 1993)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:11 PM

Carol:

That experience you relate sounds like a nightmare and a half.

While not departing from my original position, there are some good secular points to be made by the Ten Commandments, no matter what religion one aspires to, whether they are posted in public or not:

That in worshipping God we avoid worshipping humans.

That the law isn't (or shouldn't be) so far removed from us as to become too complicated or require an intermediary.

That we should realize these fundamental truths on a regular basis.

And a big implication:

If we behave properly to each other, we'll stay out of court (although not always).

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:02 PM

Don,

You know I love you, man, but every time you describe your experiences with "fundamentalists", though I've met people of the ilk you describe, I never concluded -- probably because I lived among them -- that those you described were the rule and not the exception.

And fundamentalists are divided, NOT monolithic -- even (especially?) over issues like the subject of this thread. I mean, fergoshsakes, robomatic started the damn thread with a quote from one of 'em.

This constant mudcat drumbeat of the redneck, sheepfucking, green-toothed, undereducated, mean-spirited, brutal fundamentalist is just not the description of the people that I grew up with. Did I mention "undereducated"? Don, it sounded to me like you are the one who came out of the situation you described in such detail with the elevated hubris to think that you started a whole Christian movement in response to your brilliant Bible knowledge! ...and yet, somehow you came away with the impression that it was the Christian who lacked the humility. The fundamentalists I know who do like to have a good discussion don't shrink at another's Bible knowledge. But then I guess I haven't met as many from the sheep-fucking side of the "family" of god. :^)

Even the ones I know that may bristle at the notion of "Bible as Literature" would not be doing so because of the possibility that you were going to outwit them -- though many, many I know would be the first to admit to being susceptible to the outwitting.

I know arrogant ThMs and ThDs and I know humble ones.

I also know that those same fundamentalists that you all are saying are running the world sounded exactly like you in the 80s and 90's. MUCH ink was spent describing the government's intervention in the rights of Christian parents to homeschool. The liberal juggernaut with it's Christian hating agenda was just as feared as you fear this notion of a fundamentalist government taking over.

It's a good time to be alive in that regard -- if, after living these last 20 years, you can't see the hypocricy on both sides of an issue then you probably are an extremist.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 09:26 PM

GregF, I just happened to hear on CSPAN today that many of these statistics can be obtained from the CIA Factbook. here.

For the United States it says: Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

On this site it says:
Religion: This entry is an ordered listing of religions by adherents starting with the largest group and sometimes includes the percent of total population.

But I don't see the answer to your question, how is religion defined, or what questions were used in determining the facts quoted. There is a statement on the contact page that they will respond to email questions that are not answered in the FAQS. Might be worth a try if you really want to know.