Slex

OK, thanks for the comments everyone. I have no time to join the discussion, but I think I have a link that might be of interest, and alhough not quite relevant to the topic, it may throw some light on the question. Check this <a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/papers/p_religion.pdf" target="_blank">paper</a>
I have read only the abstract so far:

Religion and Political Economy in an International Panel*
Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McCleary
Harvard University
May 2, 2002
Abstract
Economic and political developments affect religiosity, and the extent of religious
participation and beliefs influence economic performance and political institutions. We
study these two directions of causation in a broad cross-country panel that includes
survey information over the last 20 years on church attendance and an array of religious
beliefs. Although religiosity declines overall with economic development, the nature of
the response varies with the dimension of development. Church attendance and religious
beliefs are positively related to education (thereby conflicting with theories in which
religion reflects non-scientific thinking) and negatively related to urbanization.
Attendance also declines with higher life expectancy and lower fertility. We investigate
the effects of official state religions, government regulation of the religion market,
Communism, religious pluralism, and the denominational composition of religious
adherence. On the other side, we find that economic growth responds positively to the
extent of some religious beliefs but negatively to church attendance. That is, growth
depends on the extent of believing relative to belonging. These results hold up when we
use as instrumental variables the measures of official state religion, government
regulation, and religious pluralism.

*This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation and the
John Templeton Foundation.

Thor Q. Mada

Well, as a European, I never new the US was so religious. For example most people in Europe are totally unaware that there is a controversy in the US between creationist and evolutionist.
Although it is not a fact, most people in Europe, religious or not have accepted evolution as the best fitting explanation for the diversity and development of life on earth.
Teaching creation as an alternative theory just doesn't come in anyone's mind even anymore.
In Europe, religious fanatics(apart from Ireland and the former Jugo) have virtually disappeared.
By the way, Mageth, in Europe, governments recognizes certain religions. They then don't become the state religion, but get subsidized by the government.
In some countries, xian, jewish, and muslim are recognized, and all three get state subsidized. They are however NOT state religions.

Here in Hong Kong, it is thick with American missionaries of all kind. Jehovas, mormons, etc. Can you guys not keep these idiots home??
Why do they feel compelled to spread their disease?? Can they not do something useful such as educating illiterates in the US or something??

lunachick

Interesting question.
NZ is very secular. We have an atheist (though religiously sensitive from a cultural, diplomatic perspective) Prime Minister. We do not have either history or a State church, AFAIK. I wonder how that holds up. We do have more immigrants from Europe and the various Pacific islands than from America, although there are more and more Americans coming to live here. Hopefully not so many as to try and turn us into a fervent fundie nation.
It'll be interesting to see this thread develop, as I'd love to know why the US is such a weird place when it comes to religion.
I also find it interesting that those nations that hold most dearly to religion are often among the most corrupt on the planet. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Strange paradox.

Per

I think the real question is: Why is America more religious than Europe?
I view the move toward non-religiousity in Europe and other parts of the world since the Age of Enlightenment as a natural part of human development as we scientifically learn more and more about the world around us. It is America along with various muslim theocracies that is going against this trend.

Gurdur

Germany - officially State-recognised Protestant church pastors have a recognised status as quasi-government officials.
Interestingly, this actually promotes religious freedom and diversity, as one pastor told me, since a pastor is free to say what his/her congregation doesn't want to hear - a far cry from the USA (the pastor who told me this had actually also served a while in a USA church, so had a good basis of comparison).

France - similar situation, but complicated by Catholic inner politics, and French worldviews.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands - very similar to Germany.

Even Britain, where CofE archbishoprics are granted/approved by the Palace acting on the government's advice - and take seats in the House of Lords.
Doesn't all this non-USA-approvable political incorrectness just make your teeth grit ?

Military chaplains in many European countries (as well as the USA).

Oh, and all those countries are in practice more secular in daily life than the USA, with the possible exception of the French, who are simply more French than anyone else.

North American atheists and agnostics should really take a long, hard look at themselves, their beliefs, goals and tactics.
Up till now they've been very puritanical, not just arguing for rigorous C/S seperation, which is an attainable goal, and <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa102202a.htm?terms=n437" target="_blank">with which they could actually gain a fair few theist allies</a>, naaaaaw, , they go muchly for a maxi position whereby they attack all theists and theisms (often blindly), and demand an end to theism itself - a maxi position doomed to failure, and a failure very likely to harm C/S seperation badly, i.e. not only an impossible goal, but one in which seeking its attainment also destroys otherwise attainable goals.

I suppose if the worst comes to the worst, North American atheists and agnostics can always console themselves with just how ideologically correct they were, how very pure of heart.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Seeker196

"Even Britain, where CofE archbishoprics are granted/approved by the Palace acting on the government's advice - and take seats in the House of Lords."

WHAT! Is this still true?? I thought the Lords had been reformed long ago.

Jack the Bodiless

IIRC, the bishops have now lost their seats in the House of Lords, just as the hereditary peers have.

However, the de facto head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is still appointed by the Prime Minister (ironically a Catholic at present), though the PM's theoretical right to choose the candidate is never exercised. It's an anachronism that gets mentioned whenever a new Archbishop gets appointed, but nobody has yet bothered to update the law.

It's the British way of doing things: old laws and customs fall into disuse but don't get repealed unless a court case arises. Nobody has yet sought to prosecute a London taxi driver for not carrying the obligatory nosebag of fodder for his horse.

To compound the irony, the spiritual head of the Anglican Church is the monarch, who can be of any religion (and the next in line, Charles, does not appear to be a Christian). And those who join the Royals by marriage can be of any religion EXCEPT Catholicism.

Amos

No because they are on fire with the Lord. They are burning with the desire that you would be like them so JC can come back to earth and end their suffering. Understand here that this cannot happen until they have been all over and made everybody like them.

seanie

Some minor points.

The bishops haven't lost their seats just yet but they may be about to. The second stage of the Lords reform is still being formulated.

Tony Blair's not Catholic but his wife and kids are.

The monarch can't be Catholic. It's forbidden by the 1701 Act of Settlement. However I don't know if other not-protestant religions are excluded. There's a largely symbolic campaign to repeal this at the moment.

Charles's religious views are unclear. His desire to be reincarnated as a tampon may suggest a mystical bent.

One further complication. The C of E is the established church of England. Scotland has it's own established Church that, unlike it's neighbour, is separate from the state. It has supreme authority within it's own sphere and, as far as I can remember, is about the only body in the land unanswerable to parliament.

However the British constitution is so tortuous that I don't know if anyone knows for sure.

DMB

I was born in 1940 in England and went to school and university in the 40s and 50s.

At that time, although people were never as up-front about religion as many Americans (I was always told that it was bad form to discuss money, politics or religion), we were thought to be a xian nation. I went to a lot of schools as a result of my parents' nomadic way of life. Often the only state-funded school available was CofE controlled. One school I attended at the age of 10 made us walk to church for a special weekday service once a week.

Even if you attended a non-religious school, you were subjected to a xian service at the start of every school day and to xian religious indoctrination. This was by Act of Parliament.

Certainly, when I was growing up, I didn't meet many people who would admit to being atheist or agnostic. Even people who didn't go to church much or at all seemed to believe in god, heaven and hell. Among the upper and middle classes, churchgoing was regarded as a matter of good form rather than an expression of belief. Such people tended to think that one of the main functions of xianity was to instil morality, particularly among the working classes. I'm sure that that is why religion was mandated in the schools.

When I was a young woman, I taught mathematics in a number of secondary schools (ages 11 to 18), including a CofE school. I had a lot of difficulty placed in my way when I avowed my atheism and refused to take part in religious services. Interestingly, the CofE school was more liberal about this than the state schools.

Although the CofE is still hanging on as the established church by its fingertips, it is clear that there has been a massive passive rejection of imposed xianity. I think it has been facilitated by the changing ethnicity of the British. I grew up in an overwhelmingly white, Anglo-Saxon society. There were Jews, but they were only partly accepted by the majority. Mass immigration from the Commonwealth since the 50s has altered the whole look and feel of British society. It finally became necessary to admit that there were significant numbers of adherents of other religions besides CofE. Interestingly, it is still easier for some people (like the Prince of Wales) to accept people of other faiths than it is to accept non-believers. But there is no doubt in my mind that the increasing acceptance of other beliefs has allowed the atheists and agnostics to come out of the woodwork.

I suspect that although there are undoubtedly fanatical believers in the USA, a lot of people are like the English churchgoers of my youth: they belong to a church for social reasons and because church attendance confers a sort of respectability. If they believe, it is because they have not examined the doctrines of their church with a critical eye and associate their belief system with tribal loyalty. As long as you are surrounded by a lot of other people professing belief, you do not have much to spur you into doubt.

At the moment, even though numbers of non-believers appear to be rising, they still have a very low profile -- witness the godless march.

There is a basic difficulty in that non-belief is an essentially individual and private matter. Most non-believers don't see a good reason for banding together in the way that believers do. I think, however, that if a lot more of you American non-believers can come out, it will help to make non-belief possible for a lot of fence-sitters. You need to attain critical mass, and you simply haven't got there yet.

I actually feel that this is a problem in England as well. We know that there are a lot of us, but the majority are apathetic about religion rather than having a positive non-theistic philosophy and they don't care about the horrible things perpetrated by the Blair Government such as the huge expansion of state-funded faith-based schools. Organisations like the <a href="http://www.humanism.org.uk" target="_blank">BHA</a>, the <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/" target="_blank">NSS</a> and the <a href="http://www.rationalist.org.uk" target="_blank">RPA</a> have honourable histories, but a tiny membership. I would suggest that Infidels from England should consider joining one or more of these groups.