Slashdot Mirror

Religion has no small part to play in this and I suspect this effect will come into play throughout the developing world, too.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Religion in the West has a relatively small part to play in people's reproductive choices. A slim majority of Americans identify as Protestant and it has been some time since the major traditional Protestant denominations cared at all about contraception. Where one would expect religion to make a difference, among the ~24% of Americans who identify as Catholic, it barely has a noticeable effect. 89% of American Catholics, compared to 90% of non-Catholics, say the use of birth control is morally acceptable. Contrary to the stereotypes, it really isn't a practical issue for most Catholics (and this in contradiction to the teaching of their religion).

Of course I do not mean to indicate that is religion irrelevant in guiding behavior. It certainly can be a powerful motivator. But religion is most effective within a consonant cultural context, where religious expectations are reinforced by societal norms. In the West, religion has become largely a question of private, personal choice and as such it has less power to guide behavior. This, like the dissolution of traditional family structures, is a predictable effect of the present capitalism.

The non-birth control users in the West are typically not of the more affluent subsets of the population. I suspect a similar correlation exists world-wide when comparing developed and developing countries, too.

Here I think you're quite right. But this was largely my point. The most affluent classes in the West tend to have below-replace-level birthrates. The poorer tend to have higher birthrates and to use contraception less. This is analogous to the situation among countries. Wealthier, industrialized nations have lower fertility rates while the poorer countries have higher fertility rates. But unlike the mass of relatively poor classes in the industrialized West, future generations in developing economies (esp. the BRICS) are likely to be at least somewhat better off than their forebears. Likewise, I would argue, we can expect an increasing number in those countries to adopt a Western-style approach to child rearing--where the wealthier have ever fewer children while through childbearing the poorer stave off both demographic collapse and economic collapse by providing a labor pool.

Such data is gathered by the YouGov surveys, which happen very regularly. Here's the latest report. Unsurprisingly given the sort of policies associated with the coalition government, the approval rating of Parliament splits strongly down party lines. Overall the government is unpopular with a 25% approval rating, 61% disapproval and 14% don't know. However this average disguises the fact that amongst conservative voters approval is 75% and amongst Labour voters approval is only 5%.

These sorts of figures are what you might expect from the UK. The situation is not comparable to the USA where the approval rating of Congress reflects a more deep rooted feeling that corruption is rampant and all the parties are fundamentally the same. This can be seen in the fact that disapproval of Congress is almost identical regardless of voting intention. The problems in the UK reflect a strong north/south division every bit as strong as the city/rural division in the USA, where the richer and more conservative south tends to approval of austerity due to a less systematic dependence on welfare and public sector jobs. The post-industrial north is dominated by Labour voters who never made the transition to the service/knowledge economy and where quality of life is highly dependent on government spending.

I don't have time to find more precise stats, but I suspect if you examined UK voters beliefs more closely, people would not feel that democracy itself was particularly broken. Especially not over something as trivial as piracy - only in places like Slashdot and amongst the people who read it does piracy become some kind of moral imperative. Everyone else I know treats it as a naughty pleasure. They know they're breaking the law and won't get caught, but they don't have any desire to make a big moral campaign of it.

That's strange. Here in the US the majority of people are overweight.

How can a majority be persecuted?

Thank you. Also known as appeal to belief. 98% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, God must exist.

Now, let's all play 'Call me a denier for asking a question.' (AKA Appeal to ridicule) Let's assume for a moment that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to man. Let's assume our current atmospheric CO2 is close to 400ppm. If 400ppm CO2 is causing global warming, then can someone please explain to me how the Earth's climate was cooler during the late Ordovician period when CO2 was about 4400ppm?

In 2011, 31,000 people died firearm-related deaths.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year

In 2010, there were 10,000 deaths due to drunk driving, and that number is falling.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

More crap and bullshit from the anti-gun-control crowd.

All but 11,000 of those gun related deaths were from suicide, so the number of innocent victims are much closer to drunk driving than it you are presenting.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Many of the remaining deaths were at the hands of repeat offenders, meaning that meaningful prison reforms to lower our recidivism rate would be more effective than gun control. For example, in Illinois, from 1990-2000, 42% of homicides were at the hands of people with at least one felony conviction.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201308

Also, gun related deaths are down 49% since 1993, so I'm no sure why you are using that to exonerate drunk driving, but condemn firearms.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

This, despite there being more firearms in the country since that time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Although the new technology may have an impact, it appears unlikely there will be significantly more restrictive gun control laws passed at the Federal level in the US. The public and the facts are against it overall. In various states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, there have been a number of new, highly restrictive laws passed, that at least in some cases are unpopular, are opposed by the police, and are unlikely to survive challenges in court. The brilliant governor in New York managed to get a law passed that outlawed even police weapons - New York is in the best of hands although California is a contender as well.

The idea that ordinary citizens can't protect themselves with guns is ridiculous.

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

What about the murder rate?

Murder by Numbers

Gun control's general effect on crime?

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
Crime soared with Mass. gun law
England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

Political support for more restrictive nation gun control measures in the US has fallen.

USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50%
During a manhunt, 69 percent of voters want a gun
NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S
Dems push gun control agenda in DC, but not in battleground states

There we go, playing the race card. Sigh. What does a kid with a BB gun have to do with this? Nothing, but it "creates the narrative". We all know what the narrative is, race race race. It's always first on the list and it always gets shoehorned in even if it doesn't belong. Everyone sees it but due to the mainstream media's gatekeeper role nobody can talk back. This is why Americans distrust the media, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

Except in this case it is actually relevant. According to the Department of Education students that are ethnic minorities are 3.5 times as likely to be expelled than a white student who does the exact same thing.... Think about that and then claim that race doesn't matter.

This is why Americans distrust the media, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

And yet the vast majority of Americans lap up the excrement that the mainstream media shits out every single day, without much question or critical thought. Lol @ that poll, and you for even using it.

Btw, I agree that FAR too many times race is brought into issues where it does not belong, and I'm African American myself. However, let's not pretend that race is NEVER an issue anymore, as if all racism ceased to exist @12am on 1/1/2000. That's just as dumb and short-sighted as any idiot who tries to bring race to the forefront of every issue.

There we go, playing the race card. Sigh. What does a kid with a BB gun have to do with this? Nothing, but it "creates the narrative". We all know what the narrative is, race race race. It's always first on the list and it always gets shoehorned in even if it doesn't belong. Everyone sees it but due to the mainstream media's gatekeeper role nobody can talk back. This is why Americans distrust the media, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

The NRA (~ 4,200,000 members) dwarfs the size of the ACLU (~ 550,000 members) making it one of Americas largest, important civil rights organizations. You might find this interesting: NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month

Do you think you will be referring to the ACLU as the 0.15% vocal minority?

NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S.
USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50%

You can think that all you like, but the reality is that Americans have an immensely negative view of atheists. Here, observe that Americans consider atheists more objectionable than blacks, women, Catholics, Hispanics, Jews, Mormons, gays, or Muslims for political office. And that study does not discriminate about which political party you're discussing!

Well people could choose to stop with the religion thing in response.

That's what Catholics are doing in the US.

I haven't pulled up charts for other countries. The US is said to be more religious then European countries though, so I wager that the charts for Europe show even less attendance.

The Catholic church is like Microsoft in this regard. Even if the next 10 revs are worthless, they've got a lot of inertia, a lot of people that are used to it, and a tremendous pile of cash. They won't go away anytime soon; but they have become less relevant.

Did religious folks help? Of course.

Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old.

Would progress in science have been faster if all the contributors were anti-religion?

Quite likely.

Ok - what non-religious country in the past one thousand years do you feel pushed/allowed science to advance better than the Christian countries? You encounter some Christians that don't believe in evolution and decide that this is a common theme. This is as fair as taking 2000 years of history and only citing examples where the churches hindered science. This shows how close minded you are.

If I pointed to non-Christian or godless countries and pointed out their human rights records, would that prove anything to you? If I told you I knew some really hate-filled, intolerant atheists, would that prove something to you? I doubt it, just like you knowing some ignorant people does mean anything to me.

I sincerely hope that the anti-religious folks keep pushing harder and harder against people that have faith. Eventually, you are going to push people to the point where they start speaking up for themselves.

Did religious folks help? Of course.

Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old.

Would progress in science have been faster if all the contributors were anti-religion?

Quite likely. After all, it was the refusal of allowing religious texts to explain the unknown that allowed people to move forward in discovering and stealing that "forbidden knowledge of good and evil" from religious texts and doctrines.

Would Isaac Newton have been a better physicist if he had been Richard Dawkins?

Who knows? I can say for certain they were two men who dared to question as much as they possibly could -- something that is often frowned upon and punished internally when you question religions. Let's turn that question around: Would we have physics today if Isaac Newton had been Cotton Mather?

Would Galileo have had more success with his telescope if he had been Christopher Hitchens?

Why do you pick Christopher Hitchens and not Neil deGrasse Tyson? I think we can all agree there are very intelligent men today that have been freed from having to answer to some lethargic and backwards power structure such as The Pope or fear a lynching for contradicting a 2,000 year old text. And I think we can safely say that if the church wasn't allowed to shove its nose into and intimidate people with telescopes back during Galileo's time, we would be far better off today.

Would Christianity have been more pro-science if Augustine had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?

Here's a better question: Would Augustine have been a saint or would he have been excommunicated/burned at the stake if he had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?

Silly questions. The culture of science developed in the real historical context of society. Give credit where credit is due.

Yeah. Yeah, that's really depressing to know that someone can have a doctorate from Yale and Harvard and cling to this idea that science owes its existence to religion. It's even more disgusting that you restrict your examples specifically to Christianity and not Hindi or Muslim contributions.

You save yourself a lot of time and it allows you cast off the burdensome chore of having to parse The Bible and reason out why one part is metaphorical while another part needs to be literally followed. And then at the end of the day someone else is still calling you a sinner and your science is hobbled by what is and isn't taboo to explore.

A lot of scientists working on the V-1 and V-2 campaigns would later expand human capabilities into space ... that didn't mean that their ideologies at the time were right. Likewise, because a Reverend could use evidence to come to the correct conclusion that dinosaurs were more like birds doesn't present one shred of evidence to me that Christianity is right, let alone reconcilable with science.

Just as icing on the cake, Silver's needling managed to elicit a truly adorable public letter where, after some sputtering about 'changes' and 'continuing to evaluate methods' and suchlike, gets down to business and Accuses Silver(not by name, that'd be admitting it; but just those people who aggregate other people's polls, y'know, as an anonymous general class, of course) as free riders who will destroy the vital(Umm... Srsly?) business of polling and bring down the tragedy of the commons upon the beleaguered industry..

A majority of Americans now favor legalizing Cannabis. A petition asking for Cannabis reform got 75,000 signatures(and was summarily dismissed by Obama). A signature that got 100,000 signatures is like to have even more support among the general public.

Gallup does a "well-being" poll (the factors they use to determine "well-being" correlate pretty well with happiness). While the Gallup poll agrees that Hawaii is the "happiest", the rest of their poll comes out significantly different. For example, the Twit survey from this article has Florida as above the median for happiness, the Gallup poll has them third from the bottom.

This is a study of the happiness of technically savvy people. As cheap and ubiquitous as cell phones are, Florida is full of people who live outside the cities and couldn't care less about twitter. The Gallup poll would, in theory, include those people. And from the sound of it, they are not very happy individuals. :-)

Gallup does a "well-being" poll (the factors they use to determine "well-being" correlate pretty well with happiness). While the Gallup poll agrees that Hawaii is the "happiest", the rest of their poll comes out significantly different. For example, the Twit survey from this article has Florida as above the median for happiness, the Gallup poll has them third from the bottom. Another example, this Twit poll puts Maryland near the bottom, while Gallup puts it near the top. The real problem with the Twit survey is that states that are vacation destinations will have a disproportionate representation of people who are not involved in their daily grind. I suspect That not only are people who are on vacation more likely to be happy, those that are Twits probably tweet more while on vacation.

Most accurately, at least in American politics:
Democrats stay democrats; independents tend to become conservatives as they age.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118285/democrats-best-among-generation-baby-boomers.aspx

Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve.

You are wrong and that is part of the problem. I know it seems almost impossible to believe, but in the US, literally 46% of the population reports to believe that humans were created exactly as they are now within the last 10,000 years.

The problem is, rational folks just can't imagine that such a huge % of the US population could believe such utter nonsense so we don't treat it with the seriousness we need too.

It is frightening as all hell.

For reference:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?

Don't trouble the good doctor with this bogus question. I'm a deeply religions person who accepts what science teaches. Your mistake is assuming that all, or even most, people of faith are luddites who need convincing, like your aunts and uncles. In fact, most are not.

[citation needed] http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
I know that I was talking about Yourg Earth Creationists and Gallup poll is about if God created mankind within the last 10,000 years and those are different questions. However, the poll does show a clear rejection of science by people of faith. As of the 2012 numbers, "God created man as is" was 46%, "Man evolved with God's guidance" was 32%, "Man evolved without God's influence" was 15%. If we assume (I know, I'm going out on a limb here) that the 15% are largely comprised of the atheists, agnostics, and various unaffiliated, then people who believe in God in the U.S. (another limb, but that's where I live) are more likely to reject than accept the science of human evolution by almost a 3:2 margin.

Among the deeply religious in the U.S., you sir, are in the minority if you accept the science of human evolution.

However, since the title of this article is "... Merging Science and Religion" I thought I would ask about a particular situation in my life where trying to merge religious beliefs with sciences as varied and accepted as plate techtonics, carbon dating (or potassium or uranium), paleontology, and astronomy failed. My cousin, who is home-schooling, asked me how I thought she could teach her children what they are required to know for state tests and stick to the dogma of her church. Of course the answer is obvious, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I'm just basing that assertion on poll numbers like these: Public Policy Polling, Gallup.

Here's the vote of each Senator [govtrack.us] on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

Broken relative to what? Those bills tend to be pretty popular, I doubt 23/100 Americans would vote against it if it were put to a referendum. Heck, a small plurality support warrantless wiretapping even in the US, which makes me severely doubt that you could find much opposition to wiretapping international calls where one end is not a US citizen.

Now, I don't like it (I'm definitely in the 23/100) but willful blindess to uncomfortable facts does not seem to me like a valid (or effective) political strategy. Nor does complaining about "broken" or "treasonous" politicians that are implementing the will of the voters.

This poll does, and strangely enough doesn't find much difference.

I find the data extremely interesting, specifically the effectiveness by age group - it seems that younger people (some of whom have had to deal with the TSA for a significant portion of their lives) are significantly more likely to rate the agency positive compared to an older age group. This was an effect I feared - people get used to anything, and become passive. They don't know how much better air travel could be.

I hope someone can give me some other viewpoint, because it seems to me that the lesson many government agencies might take away is this: Doesn't matter how well/poorly you do - just create enough of a bureaucracy/hysteria so that you can last for a decade, and people will accept it as the new normal.

This poll does, and strangely enough doesn't find much difference.

In the US, as of 2011, 3 in 10 people believe the Bible is the literal word of God. 49% believe it is inspired by God.

You draw the line when it starts to affect other people. The government (and society in general) ration resources when they become scarce - this isn't new. Similarly, the concept of speed limits and driver alcohol testing came about for safety, because enough people weren't able to handle themselves responsibly that measures were put into place for the good of everyone. On the topic of guns, I can say that I do not care for them and do not own or intend to own any. However, I also don't care if my neighbors want to have five guns for every room in their house, and if they want to go to the shooting range every day - they can do what they want.

The problem arises when we have people using guns to kill large numbers of people. Statistically speaking, our country is the most violent of any developed nation (see point #5), and we also have the most guns. Further, you'll find that the most violent region of the United States (the South - see point #6) correlates with the greatest number of guns, according to self-reported gun ownership. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but there's a trend that I'm sure you're noticing.

Additional regulations and restrictions is a raw deal for responsible gun owners, but we have a problem that unfortunately is affecting many people. I respect the rights of gun owners, but their rights end where mine begin. Sadly, the focus of their hobby is a factor that puts me, my family, and my community at risk. Hopefully we can come to an agreement such that the gun owners can still enjoy their hobby, and the threats that guns pose are greatly reduced.

To be fair, the US congress is one of the most unpopular entites in the United States, at one time at about 9% approval. Porn, Poligamy, and the BP Oil Spill were all more popular. I would imagine it isn't any more popular outside the USA.

Saying something nice about Congress under such circumstances is not only difficult, but personally hazardous.

Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian

As an "educated" Christian myself who believes in Evolution led by God, I used to think exactly what the parent says here. Unfortunately, that statement is just not true. 46% of adult Americans believe that humans were created by God in their present form, less than 10,000 years ago. I was very troubled when I saw that. As for those who hold my belief, 32%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

and both are 100% wrong.

Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian

As an "educated" Christian myself who believes in Evolution led by God, I used to think exactly what the parent says here. Unfortunately, that statement is just not true. 46% of adult Americans believe that humans were created by God in their present form, less than 10,000 years ago. I was very troubled when I saw that. As for those who hold my belief, 32%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

You've probably been listening to Fox news or talk radio too much. Try stepping out of the epistemic closure echo chamber and looking at some actual data on satisfaction with health care

it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days

Well according to Gallup, Romney was leading among registered voters in the third week of October and was tied with Obama as recently as the last week. Romney was leading among likely voters for the entirety of October through November 5. "Obvious", it was not.

I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July

So you said his team was planning in July, but then you turn around and claimed it only became obvious in the past few days. What makes this "delusional"?

I don't fault the Romney campaign for putting together a transition team; without one you don't look like you're playing to win.

The delusional part is that Romney was only ever ahead or tied in the popular vote; the electoral math showed all along that Romney would have to more or less run the swing state table whereas Obama only needed to pick off a few.

it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days

Well according to Gallup, Romney was leading among registered voters in the third week of October and was tied with Obama as recently as the last week. Romney was leading among likely voters for the entirety of October through November 5. "Obvious", it was not.

I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July

So you said his team was planning in July, but then you turn around and claimed it only became obvious in the past few days. What makes this "delusional"?

All a 3rd party president could do is VETO stuff and talk.

The President has a lot of power in who he appoints to run agencies and set agendas. If he wanted to stop the Feds from raiding states that have legalized, he could. A simple phone call would likely suffice.

please try to suppress the urge to talk about pot - it doesn't matter if you call it "medial marijuana" it's still pot and your candidate is a long haired hippie.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

50% of Americans now favor legalizing marijuana. Times are changing. We need to keep talking about it for change to happen.

That strong demand?

Yes that strong demand. And it remains true today: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx

As far as the news media ... the news media did a terrible job in their analysis. But at the time published Bin Ladin's statement in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/afghanistan.terrorism15

The facts were widely available and widely discussed. The laws that were put into effect represented the popular consensus. If people are unable to form rational policy responses to opposition to our foreign policy, that's an argument against democracy not for it.

But who on earth is silly enough to take the bible literally?

Thirty percent of Americans.

The percentage is far larger than you think, even in the US. Gallup has a running total for the percentages. 32% believe in the Theistic Evolution of Man. I object to how gallup asked the question since the people who are lumped into the "Creation" side could still believe in Evolution of Everything except Man, or Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. Lumping them together the way they have makes them seem larger than they really are. Heck the people who believe in the Evolution of Everything Except Man are actually Evolutionary Theists, but are simple refusing to side with it Because some people insist on presenting Evolution as anti-God. Which was never a good idea in the first place.

Tsk, talking about confirmation bias.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/26/obama_jumps_in_gallup_tracker.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Oh... Gallup suddenly is not that credible anymore, is it?

I picked a religious example, because Iranian censorship is rooted in religion, and because we have many people of strong faith in this country who have fought against the teaching of evolution in the schools. It's an easy example; I was being intellectually lazy. But when people of strong faith feel that their religion is being threatened, it's not insane to expect them to push back.

Christianity has been threatened since long, long ago.

You say that Christianity is not Islam; I agree that today it seems to be a much gentler religion. But it wasn't always that way. Consider Galileo, or Giordano Bruno.

First: the Galileo case was less bad (I'm _not_ saying it wasn't bad!) than people think. Galileo thought that the Sun was the center of the _Universe_. He did not have good arguments for his theory - he thought that the tides prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, but this was _wrong_. In fact, we now know that the tides are primarily caused by the gravity of the _Moon_. He also couldn't answer the objections of his opponents - if the Earth moves, then why don't we detect a parallax of the stars? (We now know that the stars are so far away that the parallax is very hard to see with the naked eye). Nevertheless, he was authorized to promote his idea as a scientific hypothesis. But some Aristotelian philosophers and theologians criticized him and, unfortunately, he entered into that fight. He started using theological arguments. He was forbidden (this is where the mistake of the Church authorities begin) to challenge the established Aristotelian philosophy and theology. He then _forged a signature_ to publish a book that did just that - challenged theology and Aristotelian philosophy. Because of the forgery, he was sentenced to _house arrest_; he died a good Catholic and his daughter became a nun. The whole process was still _bad_, I agree, but blessed John Paul II has already apologized for this. Also,

Second: please read about the Council Vatican II(1962-1965). it was an extremely important Church council, which enacted a lot of needed reforms. Certain old bad practices (such as supporting authoritarian governments which censored heresies) were condemned for good. And once an idea has been promulgated by an Ecumenical Council, it stays _forever_.

Also, America has an established tradition of separation of Church and state, and radical free speech. American free speech is so radical that you can deny the Holocaust, or picket funerals. And the Supreme Court is very "conservative" in the sense of not overturning previous decisions. It would be _very_ hard for the Supreme Court to change its mind and start allowing ideological/political/religious censorship.

As for the "46%" poll, it was done by Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx.

Well, that same poll also has some positive aspects.
* If a presidential candidate does not believe in evolution, 53% of American voters would not care, 29% would be _less_ likely to vote for him/her, and only 15% would me more likely to vote for him/her.
* Only 20% oppose evolution being taught in public school science classes, and 61% support it.

When I googled for it the Huffington Post link was the first one that came up. Laziness on my part again. Next time I'll be more careful and cite the original source.

Thank you very much for listening to me, and also for being polite.

But as you can see, 46% polled by Gallup believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That most certainly is Young Earth Creationism.

Not exactly. Young Earth Creationism states that the _Earth_ is a few thousand years old. It conflicts with quite a lo

I'm not making an argument. I'm simply wondering if the "walling off" of sections of the Internet could happen in this country in the coming decades if the political landscape tilts heavily in one direction.

I picked a religious example, because Iranian censorship is rooted in religion, and because we have many people of strong faith in this country who have fought against the teaching of evolution in the schools. It's an easy example; I was being intellectually lazy. But when people of strong faith feel that their religion is being threatened, it's not insane to expect them to push back.

You say that Christianity is not Islam; I agree that today it seems to be a much gentler religion. But it wasn't always that way. Consider Galileo, or Giordano Bruno. Then consider what might happen -- 50, 100 years from now -- if the political leadership happened to be composed entirely of people drawn from the same religious background: good people, honest people, sincere people, who wish only the best for their nation. They may see censorship not as evil, but as a protection *from* evil influence. I doubt it would even be called censorship. "Standards of decency," maybe. "Protection from harmful influences."

It would very probably start with pornography. But I'm afraid that it would not end there.

As for the "46%" poll, it was done by Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx . When I googled for it the Huffington Post link was the first one that came up. Laziness on my part again. Next time I'll be more careful and cite the original source.

But as you can see, 46% polled by Gallup believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That most certainly is Young Earth Creationism.

In my previous reply I forgot to post the link to the poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

The article references a gallup poll stating that 46% believe in Young Earth Creationism. Here's the original poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

This poll seems timely: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx

People react to the culture in which they're brought up. And even in the Middle East, it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

As an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, except one: I want to live in a peaceful world. Six years ago I wrote this journal entry. I'm more fearful today than then that a new Hitler will arise, and no less convinced that the chances are equal that such a Hitler will come from the West as they are from the Middle East.

It's Obama's fault for oversimplification of the problem and with his Democratic cohorts, Pelosi, Reid et al. for doing a lot of backroom deals to push bad legislation through. Do we all want affordable health care? Yes! Do we want to be able to make sure that we can get care for pre-existing conditions? Yes! Do we want 16000 new IRS agents enforcing the insurance mandate? No.

Ask yourself why an industry like the health care industry has seen increases in costs much faster than inflation? Sure, the number of uninsured has risen but also some of these deals that were made allow the drug companies and others to not be challenged in terms of their costs. They will continue to rake in record profits and are allowed monopolies in this country that they shouldn't have. You think software patents are bad? How about the prohibition of importing drugs from say India? You have a licensed monopoly and they will rape you for every dollar.

Electronic Record keeping isn't bad, it's bad when you have fraud already and you don't work on closing that out before you give crooks another way to steal from us all.

Also, despite the "grand legislation" there are more uninsured as of 2011 then there were back in 2008 when they started tracking it.

Almost 18% of GDP is spent on healthcare in this country now and in comparison to other developed nations we spend more than our peers. Germany spends 10% of their GDP on Healthcare with 22% coming from private spending, meaning insurers and the government pay out 78%. In the US, 17.9% of GDP is spent on healthcare with 47% coming from private spending. It's an industry out of control and the whole Obamacare legislation won't fix it.

So, I don't just blame Obama, I blame the Democrats and the Republicans, in fact all of these idiots in DC and the statehouses who have allowed this to happen to us. I'll be retiring in 20 years, probably into a cardboard box. Why? Because I'll get free health care and I won't have to pay any taxes.

Romney has been skyrocketing in terms of female popularity lately...

Not according to Gallup:

"The gender gap in presidential preferences has not changed over the last four months, with men preferring Romney over Obama by eight points, while women prefer Obama by an identical margin."

Is that a faith-based fact?

According to Gallup, American confidence in organized religion is at an all time low. Also, 7 out of 10 Americans see religious influence declining in America.

Is that a faith-based fact?

According to Gallup, American confidence in organized religion is at an all time low. Also, 7 out of 10 Americans see religious influence declining in America.

Nearly half of American adults believe humans were created out of whole cloth by God within the past 10,000 years, a figure that has hardly changed at all in over three decades. Belief in evolution without any guidance from God has risen from 9% in 1982 to a whopping 15% in 2012. When pastors and parents say one thing, and teachers say another, apparently what the teachers say falls on deaf ears.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Without much digging, here's a gallup poll on the issue from 2010 (Americans like polls, yes, despite their massive flaws?). 40% believing in "strict creationism" (that's "God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago"), 38% for "God-guided evolution" and a mere 16% for God-less (but not necessarily atheistic) evolution.

So if you include the second option as "creationism", that's 78% and a clear majority. Even going with strict creationism, that's more than any of the other options. Based on that I think "most Americans" is a valid claim.

The education table is quite an interesting one; the difference in "strict creationist" believer; those with no college education at 47%, those with postgraduate education at 22%, whereas the "God-less evolution" goes from 9% to 25%.

The politics comparison is also interesting; for strict creationism you have 34% D, 52% R (and with independents never more than 1% away from the Ds).