It doesn't bother me knowing that candidate X is a Christian; it bothers me that they use it as a sales gimmick.

As I've said many times, real Christians don't need to advertise. And I have a hunch God doesn't like being co-opted by candidates, whether that co-opting be Mike Huckabee's appearance at Liberty University, or Hillary Clinton's campaign photo-ops at an Iowa Methodist church.

From what I've seen, Europeans reject Religion in pretty much any kind of decision making.  Sure, they dutifully pay their church taxes and would rather die than not have their kids go through the various "rites of passage".  They take great pride in the presence of the church buildings in their communities, but by in large, the whole religion thing should stay in those buildings and leave them alone.

It seems to be the only place in the world where parents who swear they are agnostic, make sure their kids are christened, and (if there is a marriage at all), it is done in a church.

haha, great. I've always liked your turn of phrase.



Australia's the same, and from my experience anyway Indonesia is for the most part very similar but with Islam instead of Christianity as the dominant faith.

Only Americans and crackpot states seem to devote much concern to religion these days (for those easily offended, note the significant 'and').

I'd like to agree with the ice cream king that it's all due to a sudden understanding of what the wheel of time means, but so far as I can tell it's because they found a new religion to squabble about - economics. The rumblings about Islam suggest they'll be enthusiastically executing heathens any decade now.

It doesn't bother me knowing that candidate X is a Christian; it bothers me that they use it as a sales gimmick.

Almost everything about religion here bothers me - in much the same way that almost everything about attitudes to sex in this country bother me. Your comment about sales gimmicks is very pertinent. Sex sells everything from cars to chocolate (there's one ad for a brand of chocolate running here now that involves an attractive young woman fellating a slab of the stuff while appearing to be on the verge of an orgasm). And religion here serves exactly the same purpose, packaging a whole range of social values together which have nothing in themselves to do with any religious impulse - everything from Mom's Own Apple Pie to abortion. Religion equates to political conservatism; conservatism equates to a vote for the Republican party; but one can't vote for Romney, for example, because his religious convictions place him outside that package of values. I have no intention of voting for Romney because he's an oily patrician weasel with no grasp of the conditions of life of the ordinary American - not because he's a Mormon.

It seems to be the only place in the world where parents who swear they are agnostic, make sure their kids are christened, and (if there is a marriage at all), it is done in a church.

Even to that degree, Christianity is on the wane in Europe (except possibly for Italy) - while Islam is, of course, on the rise. Religion itself, in a variety of non-traditional forms, is alive and well in the UK, but it manifests itself outside the structures of both Catholicism and of the Church of England. Wiccans, nature-worshippers, and the old pagan gods that were worshipped before Christ was ever heard of, are all making a come back. What's notable (to me) about this resurgence is that these are varieties of religious experience that don't involve a 'personal relationship' with a 'saviour', and don't involve the sick obsession with sexual behaviour that so possesses American Christianity.

Only Americans and crackpot states seem to devote much concern to religion these days (for those easily offended, note the significant 'and').

It depends on what you mean by religion, and whether or not there is some direct (or indirect but still meaningful) connection between church and State. In America there is such an indirect connection - which occurs between individual believers who happen to hold high office. Which is why the notion that there is no connection between religion and politics in America arouses outraged howls of disbelieving laughter among Europeans. There's certainly no formal establishment of religion here, as there is in the UK, but nonetheless, religious values and concerns permeate political life in this country to a degree astonishing to any European - certainly to a degree that astonished me when I first became aware of it.

Part of that could be because, while we don't want a national religion, we do reserve the right to include religious ideals (or even lack of) in how we vote.



It must totally blow the packaging apart to think that Sen. Hatch, Gov. Romney and Sen. Reid are all of the same denomination. ;~D

Part of that could be because, while we don't want a national religion, we do reserve the right to include religious ideals (or even lack of) in how we vote.

That's a very succinct and pertinent observation, one which entirely escapes European commentators on American politics.

It must totally blow the packaging apart to think that Sen. Hatch, Gov. Romney and Sen. Reid are all of the same denomination.

I've come to see that American politics is a very broad 'church' that contains within it far more diversity than I ever realised before I came here. But while there may be diversity of detail, the broad themes that energise American politics are always the same: sex, religion, race, and economics. And within those themes the commentary, and the policy initiatives, are always the same: the Republicans, who are no more in favor of a real Republic than are the Democrats, emphasise the virtues of limited government - in relation to what are known as 'social programs'. They do this because their political inheritance is one of conservatism and political liberalism. The Democrats, on the other hand, emphasise social activism and the role of the State in providing benefits to minorities. They do this because, though they have no inkling that this is true, they are in fact confused socialists.

Both parties advocate a role for the State that is totally at odds with the Constitution - which sees the State as no more than an Arbiter in Good Faith between the competing interests within the wider society.

What's necessary to any rejuvenation of American politics, to any escape from the presumed dichotomy between the total responsibility of the individual for his own welfare, which underlies the position of the Republicans, and the communitarian and welfarist position of the Democrats, is the realisation that the State is a facilitator and not an enabler.

It is not the State's responsibility to ensure that there is a happy outcome to your life. There is a responsibility of the State to ensure (at least as the State is framed and organised in America) that there is no immediate impediment to your pursuing the project of your life as you have envisioned it.

No man should be barred from pursuing an occupation because of the color of his skin. But equally, no man should be aided in pursuing his chosen occupation because of the color of his skin. It's my belief that when Americans learn to distinguish between those two positions that all, or almost all, of the problems which presently afflict America will vanish.

I agree to that. We all seem to want to draw the line between the power of We the People and The Government. Where each of us thinks that line should be defines what we hope our nation becomes.

That is how it can begin. First, you let your religion influence the people for whom you will vote. If that trend is continued, while a distinc minority (religious minority, mind you), it would be possible to eventually see populist leaders, who could, hypothetically, restrinct non-christian's rights, somehow, somewhere.

I find it utterly bad taste for any politian to say he is christian, or say he is in favor of X religious value. He simply is trying to gather religious vote. It's like a black who says "Hey, I'm black, so vote for me". I utterly dislike when people say "I will vote for X candidate because she's a woman/black/homosexual", but it's their choice. No politician ever declared "vote for me because I'm a woman" (for whatever you people exagerate about Hillary, she never made that kind of call). So I don't see how it is any more right if somebody says "Vote for me because I'm a christian".

And on an ending note, I definetly despise you people who said they would not vote for Romney (not sure about the guy's name) because he's a Mormon. What, that IS your benchmark? If you use someone's religion, tell me what is your established ladder. Does a protestant rate better than a catholic? Which is the best administrator in your book, baptists or lutherians?

Cikomyr: No offense intended, but that was spoken like a person who holds no spiritual beliefs. I know for myself, while I don't use a person's particular denomination as a benchmark, I do consider my beliefs important in my own decision about how to vote. Does that mean I'll only vote for someone who matches my own beliefs, no. What it does mean is when we vote, we reserve the right to use whatever criteria we want. On the other hand I would never want to see my criteria become law, policy or even general practice.

You don't think spiritual beliefs are important for a candidate, cool. However, I'm sure you do have criteria that I would consider every bit as trivial or arbitrary.

~~~~~

As far as Hillary and "vote for me because I'm a woman". She doesn't have to actually come out and say it. It was well known in the Clinton White House that military members weren't welcome around her, her aspirations to be "the first Woman President" are just as pervasive, even if they aren't part of a news release.

There is also a bit of the "anything to everybody" working for, and against her there.

Christianity is on the wane in Europe (except possibly for Italy)

The Mafia wouldn't allow it; the church has too many criminal connections.

 

On the other hand I would never want to see my criteria become law, policy or even general practice.

A very fine, penetrating statement.

no man should be aided in pursuing his chosen occupation because of the color of his skin. It's my belief that when Americans learn to distinguish between those two positions that all, or almost all, of the problems which presently afflict America will vanish.

Much too broad brush stroke.

 

 

I think that just made my day.

~Zoo