Where Do Americans Really Stand on Religion?
Statue of Madonna
With new books appearing on the bestseller lists lately that have titles such as The End of Faith, The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation and God Is Not Great, it is apparent that secular thought is beginning to raise its head. And, people are noticing. From their book buying practices, it seems that the mainstream may be showing signs that perhaps they are becoming fed up with the “in your face” religion from the far-right. However, with Evangelicals becoming more politicized, especially in the current Bush administration, the religious right is making their mark. Even the left is beginning to adopt a religious tone such as Edwards talking about “the hand of God”, Obama preaching forgiveness and Clinton pushing prayer. So, where do Americans really stand on religion?
From an article in the June 25, ‘07, The Nation, Ronald Aronson quotes a 2006 Pew Research Center report on religion and public life that reveals that 69 percent of Americans believe that liberals have “gone too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and government”. With this zealous conservative agenda, we can see the results of their efforts from opposing stem-cell research, gay marriage and abortion rights, to billions spent in faith-based initiatives and government aid to religious schools.
Although with all this religious politicization, some are beginning to notice, especially non-believers. There is a significant constituency that is getting fed up with being routinely marginalized, ignored and insulted. What is surprising is that atheists, agnostics and secular humanists used to be a timid minority without a voice and often on the defensive.
But, with a recent Harris American poll it is showing that 31 percent of those with postgraduate education do not avow a belief in God. And with the education scale rising, the percentage rises. This is true among professors and then again among professors at research universities with members of the National Academy of Sciences at the highest of 93 percent.
Basilica tower cupola in Esztergom - Hungary
These numbers reflect why we are seeing more books being published that are pushing back against the conservative religious agenda. They are educated intellectuals who are what Aronson calls The New Atheists. Now, if you add this group to a group for which consider themselves believers, and those who are “spiritual” as well as professed unbelievers, according to another Pew study, a whopping 49 percent believe that Christian conservatives have “gone too far in trying to impose their religious values on the country”.
Therefore, in order for there to be an effective constituency who rebuffs the conservative religious agenda, believers such as the 49 percent above need to unite with atheists, agnostics and secular humanists who all have this interest in common. Matter of fact, there is a Protestant minister, Barry Lynn who is the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who is leading the charge “on behalf of American constitutional promises of a secular society”.
And there has been unexpected support from a Bush appointed conservative judge, John Jones, III, whose decision regarding his opposition for a bill for “intelligent design” to be taught in school has received a lot of attention. This is the Dover School Board case in which the first half of the judge’s decision reflects on what science is and why intelligent design, a form of creationism, is religion not science. The second half of his decision admonishes a minority on the school board who conspired to impose intelligent design on the district. This is amazing considering this decision came from a conservative judge. (There is hope yet.)
So, where do Americans stand on religion? It depends on who you ask, their educational status and how they are asked, but there does seem to be a trend of what it could be characterized, from the intelligence community, as “blowback” to the intrusion of religion in government. So, from a segment of the American population who has felt beleaguered and marginalized, there is hope. We need to look for areas of common interest and unite to stop the tide of irrational faith which has been made central to American government. If we look close enough, we may find more in common than we thought.
6 Comments so far
Leave a reply
New Scientist
The Onion
Media Matters
Newsvine
Associated Press
When you really consider the more intelligent a person is, the more difficult it is for this person to be hoodwinked by the system. On the other hand this intelligent person would in all probability watch his wife get raped by thugs or watch her husband get killed by thugs, rather than try to save the significant other. It is this very individualism being fostered by the system that encourages people to lose meaning in their lives and hence lose their beliefs in a supreme being. Also consider this, for what reason are we on this earth? This is the source of the contradiction that believers in God must face daily…how could God be so cruel as to let this cycle of contradictions continue? Does one turn the other way and not help someone in need?
I see our future as getting uglier by the day, rapidly descending into some sort of anomic anarchy supported by military and police might! And in this the death of individualism.
WTF? That might be the most absurd version of the old, “without god you can’t have morals” argument I’ve ever heard. Because I’m an atheist I would let my significant other be raped or killed? Are you insane?
I also see the future getting uglier I fear that we live in an age where people are afraid to accept the truth if the truth is not what they want it to be. We have people claiming that the only truth in the world was written thousands of years ago and if the evidence shows something else then the evidence is wrong. I’m going to ignore that “the only truth” is full of vengeance, murder, rape, slavery, arson, incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice.
Instead I’ll look at your theory that atheism leads to individualism. You know what I’m not going to waste any more of my time on this, there is no point. If you can believe in something as huge as a god with no evidence besides the circular argument “god says that hes a god so there must be a god.” If thats all the proof you need then what could I possible say to dissuade you? I know that I could be wrong, given sufficient evidence I would change my stance. I would think that a god would have no trouble giving us such evidence and he was more than willing to in biblical times so I won’t accept the argument that evidence belies faith and without faith god is nothing.
In the end go ahead and believe what ever you want but if you try to push your beliefs onto me then don’t be surprised when I push back. And in America I have the constitution on my side.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
- Those are the first words in the Bill of Rights
From http://www.ucctruths.com:
Barry Lynn and the Hypocrisy of Separation
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) purports to be a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization with no religious affiliation and its Executive Director, the Rev. Barry Lynn, is prominently featured on television news programs whenever issues of religion and government cross. Although Lynn prides himself as an independent arbiter of where the line between church and state meet, his silence on his own denomination’s encroachment on Jefferson’s wall of separation is not only hypocritical, it ultimately undermines his own mission.
Lynn and Americans United issue dozens of statements each year regarding church and state conflicts and, at times, go as far as go as far as challenging the issues in court. Last May, Lynn chastised a $150,000 appropriation
the Maryland General Assembly granted for the National Baptist Congress of Christian Education (NBCCE) conference held in Baltimore. Lynn claimed the grant was “totally inappropriate and clearly unconstitutional.” He further stated that “religious groups should pass the collection plate to their own members, not the taxpayers.”
However, while Lynn was criticizing Maryland’s grant, his own denomination, the United Church of Christ (UCC), was busy securing a grant from the state of Connecticut for its convention (called a General Synod) which is being held later this month in Hartford. Lynn has been noticeably silent about the Connecticut grant even though it is clearly a greater offense to the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution than the Maryland grant.
The differences between the Maryland and Connecticut grants are dramatic. After a careful legal review, the Maryland Department of Budget & Management clearly distinguished secular events the grant could support from religious events the grant could not support. The secular events supported by the grant included additional transportation resources to help ease the strain that 50,000 convention attendees would put on public transportation services. Explicitly, access to the subsidized transportation services was not “restricted to members of a particular sect.”
In contrast to the Maryland grant, the Connecticut grant is being used exclusively to pay a $100,000 fee to the Hartford Civic Center for facilities to host the United Church of Christ General Synod which is clearly a religious event with worship services where the primary audience is UCC delegates and members.
Some have argued that the Connecticut grant serves the secular purpose of promoting economic development that the approximately 8,000 attendees to the UCC General Synod will bring to Hartford. Constitutionally speaking, the distinction is not dependent on the residual economic benefit that the aid could bring but on the religious effect of the aid.
The Maryland Department of Budget & Management defined the religious effect of their grant on similar court cases involving papal visits to Philadelphia and Washington D.C. In Gilfillan v. City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit determined that aid for the building of a platform in a public park for a liturgical service rendered the religious effect of the aid “both plain and primary.” In contrast, O’Hair v. Andrus, the District of Columbia Circuit determined that the “provision of police, sanitation and related public services is a legitimate function of government and not an ‘establishment’ of religion.”
The distinction between the Connecticut grant and the Maryland grant couldn’t be clearer. In the Maryland case, the grant was used to help ease the burden on public transportation. In the Connecticut case, the grant is being used to defray the cost of the facilities to host a clearly religious event for the United Church of Christ.
When they were initially contacted last June about the Connecticut grant in light of Lynn’s public condemnation of the Maryland grant, Americans United promised that a complete investigation would be made. At a public church and state discussion forum in Columbus, Ohio last October, Lynn was asked specifically about the Americans United investigation. Lynn expressed concern about the grant but noted that further investigation was still needed.
Now, within a week of the UCC General Synod in Hartford and nearly a year after Americans United began their investigation, Lynn has yet to publicly disclose the results of his investigation into the grant that will benefit his own denomination.
Lynn is in a unique position on this issue. Part of his attraction as a public figure is his status as an ordained minister which he uses to legitimize his concern about the separation between church and state. However, if Lynn is incapable of addressing clear concerns that involve his own denomination, what credibility does he or Americans United have?
Good point Gary.
Thanks for all the information. You certainly have done your homework.
It always amazes me that just as soon as you believe there is someone out there who stands for something good, you look under the covers, and it’s not what thought.
I regret that I have to say this but I have never found Christians to stand for honesty. It’s almost as if their mission is more important than anything else. And, as long as they seem to appear loyal to their mission, then nothing else matters, even honesty. They will sacrifice honesty for what they always consider a higher cause.
Just look at Bush and all the deception around him. He believes the Iraq War was a calling from God to fight evil, so nothing will stop him. He’s on a mission from God.
And Kilgore, great comment! I’m with you all the way. I am absolutely fed up with people who try to push their beliefs on everyone else.
Thanks for the input Gary. We hope to see you on our site again.
According to Connecticut any group bringing a large crowd can ask for a rebate from the state. The only part of the Maryland grant that was blocked by AU (Americans united for separation of church and state)was a proselytizing effort which obviously should not be paid for by taxpayer money. It sounds to me that both grants should have upset AU, both seem wrong to me. Lynn is in a tough spot, if he wasn’t a minister then AU would be attacked as an atheist group trying to rid the country of all religion, which it isn’t. So then when the church that he is a part of asks for money from the government, money that is legally available what is he to do? From the view of AU he should have stepped up and tried to block the money, but think of the reaction of his fellow parishioners if he had done that. He had to choice between two groups that he is a member of, and to be fair AU did lodge a complaint against the money from Connecticut but it was within the law so it didn’t go very far. Should Lynn have taken a stronger stance against the money? Probably but I don’t know that he has enough authority within his church to have prevented it.
Even if it was hypocritical towards his own church I personally support AU as the seperation of church and state is critical to maintaining the freedom and liberty that makes America what it is.