Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2016, 03:04 AM
 
Location: Buffalo, NY
605 posts, read 491,015 times
Reputation: 888

Advertisements

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...in-study-finds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2016, 03:11 AM
 
Location: Buffalo, NY
605 posts, read 491,015 times
Reputation: 888
From a scientific standpoint, there's a lot left to be explained there. The PT headline sensationalizes. But the correlation exists. This was written in 2011; I wonder what further research has been done since.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 05:28 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,970 posts, read 13,459,195 times
Reputation: 9918
Here is the actual article, which is fully accessible.. Also the Wikipedia overview of the field here, here and here.

The links from the Wikipedia articles could be instructive, I just don't have time to follow them today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
10,529 posts, read 6,160,089 times
Reputation: 6569
I think it's a fallacy actually that there is separation of church and state in America.

As we all know, the first amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Reference to religion, and freedom to practice it, is written right there in the first amendment.

All the leading Presidential candidates, Cruz particularly, Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and even Donald Trump ("I have a great relationship with God"), have been quite vocal about their personal faith and their views on Religion.
And they are all free to do so, because like the rest of us, they are human beings (debatable) and as such are free to express their faith, according to the constitution. So while you may be able to separate politics from the church, you cannot separate politicians from the church.

These politicians are vocal about their faith, partly because they know full well that what they say influences voter opinion.


And even then, Churches have tax-free privileges which place them in a somewhat special position. Many atheists argue that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. The argument would depend upon what your view is on the role of the church (business or charity).
Many churches are absolutely run as businesses.

If there really were separation of church and state, there would be no such special privileges.

And then of course we have people like Trump who are actively and vocally Islamophobic. No separation of church and state there, especially if he is actually someday (help us all) able to carry out his ban on Muslims entering the country (which it has to be said, has gained him a lot of support).

In my opinion much of the constitution is hopelessly outdated.

Last edited by Cruithne; 03-30-2016 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,156,521 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Clinton sees her relationship with Kissinger as receiving the blessing of an elder statesman and considering all angles / viewpoints; Sanders sees Kissinger as morally corrupt, guilty of war crimes, and someone whose regard and endorsement would taint him.
Sanders view is objectively and factually correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcnkwcz View Post
Ted Cruz is Scalia-esque in his reverence for the Constitution, which was completed in 1787 by people who by today's standards (assuming the standards not of the mob but rather of some reasonable assembly of people) were/are complete idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
In my opinion much of the constitution is hopelessly outdated.
People who don't understand the Constitution often say that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
10,529 posts, read 6,160,089 times
Reputation: 6569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

People who don't understand the Constitution often say that.
People who are not prepare to progress often say that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,970 posts, read 13,459,195 times
Reputation: 9918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Sanders view is objectively and factually correct.
I quite agree with his views about Kissinger. My point was about the contrast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,970 posts, read 13,459,195 times
Reputation: 9918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
All the leading Presidential candidates, Cruz particularly, Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and even Donald Trump ("I have a great relationship with God"), have been quite vocal about their personal faith and their views on Religion.
Well they are all asked and are all expected to say something at least vaguely respectable. We aren't to a place yet where a candidate can be openly atheist, though I think both Obama and Sanders and probably Clinton are closet unbelievers. Sanders of course is Jewish, but, near as I can tell, almost entirely a cultural Jew. Of course he has to say that he's proud to be Jewish and that it's an important part of "who he is", etc., and nothing he has said is disingenuous. But "we're all in this together" is his main point, and this is simply secular humanism, without saying those two dirty words.

Clinton belongs to, and is quite active in, "The Fellowship", the secretive organization that sponsors the National Prayer Breakfast and has private Bible studies with politicians. My guess is that, like a smile that never quite reaches the eyes, her "faith" is just another exercise in power brokering. She claims to pray daily, and to pray for her enemies, to which I say "hahahahahaha".

It's all downhill from there with the Republicans; pretty standard pandering and hypocrisy. Even Cruz, who I suspect at least mostly believes his own BS, is guilty of that. At the Republican town hall a couple of nights back he spoke derisively of candidates who claim god told them to run for office. Except ... that's just what he did when he announced his own candidacy after "prayerful consideration".

At any rate, I agree with you that separation of church and state is more theory than practice in this country. Christianity is specially treated and privileged, all the while claiming it's persecuted and existentially threatened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 07:17 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,571,363 times
Reputation: 2070
Total up the possible voters. If atheist were the top group in numbers the candidates would all give respectable answers to them. The group with the most people tend to get their way. they also tend to have the biggest target on their Back. The hypocritical nature of any large group becomes exposed when the line must be drawn. And it must be drawn. I think the biggest difference in rational people is where does that line get drawn. I just don't get why we listen to the "no liners" and the "My liners only."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 07:40 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,571,363 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
People who are not prepare to progress often say that.
I am not a constitution literalist either. But it is a good base. The idea's are sound and make great reference points. "progressing" to what? would be the question I have. I see digressing in many way as we veer off of the constitution. The founding fathers meant democracy without vulgarity.

I have a question. Are women and children safer today at night or were they safer in 1960 at night? Tp go to the mall or around the corner to a shop?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top