Prejudice against the religious

[brien]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Like... Anti gay marriage amendments?

I asked you this previously. What does the institution of marriage have to do with religion?

[brien]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I started this thread to address an unfair bias that I possess, that I believe I need to work through. It SEEMS to me that religious people are less intelligent. This is based on personal perception. A personal perception that is biased. OK, the statement There are enough smart religious people is, indeed, a statement of fact. Surely, though, that statement of fact is not in dispute here? I mean, do I need to make a list of smart religious people to prove the point?

Surely, though, that statement of fact is not in dispute here?

Well I say it is because you yourself pointed out the Wikipedia piece that shows no correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: brien Well I say it is because you yourself pointed out the Wikipedia piece that shows no correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs.

Now I am am confused.

Do we agree that there are plenty of intelligent religious people, regardless of comparisons between the average intelligence of religious and non religious people?

[brien]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Now I am am confused. Do we agree that there are plenty of intelligent religious people, regardless of comparisons between the average intelligence of religious and non religious people?

Yes Religion and intelligence remain independent of each other. Agreed on this.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I do not do that,

Of course you do. You're an agnostic. Agnosticism relies on faith to keep god "possible" yet neither proven or unproven. Theists have tradition and holy text. Atheists have science & logic.

Agnostics have only their own imagination to point to as "evidence". We've well established this in several past threads. Why do you keep disagreeing with what's been determined? Let me guess... you're going to argue that you don't use only your own imagination as evidence by offering things of your own imagination, yes?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Of course you do. You're an agnostic. Agnosticism relies on faith to keep god "possible" yet neither proven or unproven. Theists have tradition and holy text. Atheists have science & logic. Agnostics have only their own imagination to point to as "evidence". We've well established this in several past threads. Why do you keep disagreeing with what's been determined? Let me guess... you're going to argue that you don't use only your own imagination as evidence by offering things of your own imagination, yes?

Zhavric, declaring things does not make them so. You can imagine all these things that have been established if it pleases you, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Frankly, your thinking is too dogmatic, and your debating is too evasive to be worth the effort.

So, go play, the rest of us are having meaningful discussions here.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: brien Yes Religion and intelligence remain independent of each other. Agreed on this.

That is not what I said.

I said there are plenty of intelligent religious people.


I was not aware of the absence of a correlation between religiosity and intelligence until after we began this thread, and I looked it up on wikipedia.

[brien]

I said there are plenty of intelligent religious people.

I think this is a reasonable statement.

[brien]

Atheists have science & logic

Which proves what with respect to the existence or non existence of a diety?

[Captain Chaos]

[quote=brien;360655]

Quote by: Captain Chaos That is not what I said. I said there are plenty of intelligent religious people. QUOTE] I think this is a reasonable statement.

So, my point was...

Whether or not religious people are, on average, less intelligent (or more intelligent) - and whether or not I perceive them to be that way (true or not) - I should still give individual religious people a chance, before I assign them to the stupid category in my head.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: brien Oh please. Where do you see ID gaining in its strength and acceptance? The media blows it up once in a while in jerkwater USA and some people get all nervous that schools are suddenly turning secular in their teachings. Oh my, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

From the text in the study:

"The total effect of fundamentalist religious beliefs on attitude toward evolution (using a standardized metric) was nearly twice as much in the United States as in the nine European countries (path coefficients of -0.42 and -0.24, respectively), which indicates that individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views." ........................... "Second, the evolution issue has been politicized and incorporated into the current partisan division in the United States in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan. In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as a part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in southern and Midwestern states—the "red" states. In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in seven states included explicit demands for the teaching of "creation science". There is no major political party in Europe or Japan that uses opposition to evolution as a part of its political platform." ........................................................ "The politicization of science in the name of religion and political partisanship is not new to the United States, but transformation of traditional geographically and economically based political parties into religiously oriented ideological coalitions marks the beginning of a new era for science policy. The broad public acceptance of the benefits of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century allowed science to develop a nonpartisan identification that largely protected it from overt partisanship. That era appears to have closed."

From Science 11 August 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 765 - 766
DOI: 10.1126/science.1126746
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION: Public Acceptance of Evolution -- Miller et al. 313 (5788): 765 Data Supplement - Supporting Online Material -- Science

So, got anything to debunk this report? While the ID debate might not cause the belief to be accepted more and more, it has stopped evolution from being accepted by Americans as much as it should be.

[brien]

[quote=Captain Chaos;360662]

Quote by: brien So, my point was... Whether or not religious people are, on average, less intelligent (or more intelligent) - and whether or not I perceive them to be that way (true or not) - I should still give individual religious people a chance, before I assign them to the stupid category in my head.

Another reasonable statement.

[brien]

Quote by: Zinkovich From the text in the study: From Science 11 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 765 - 766 DOI: 10.1126/science.1126746 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION: Public Acceptance of Evolution -- Miller et al. 313 (5788): 765 Data Supplement - Supporting Online Material -- Science So, got anything to debunk this report? While the ID debate might not cause the belief to be accepted more and more, it has stopped evolution from being accepted by Americans as much as it should be.

Your study may impress you but it does nothing to add to the debate of the RR and its religious influence in the US government today. Show me one law that was created and legislated by the RR. Show me one Judge that has influenced the law in a judicial decision based upon religious benchmarks. This world study is irrelevant to the influence of the RR on the government. This idea of secular influence in the US Government is a weak and overblown paranoid fear raised by people who merely distrust others that may think differently from themselves.

While the ID debate might not cause the belief to be accepted more and more, it has stopped evolution from being accepted by Americans as much as it should be.

Aghhhhhhhh Where are your specific statistics to prove this?

[Captain Chaos]

That study shows public acceptance of evolution to be very low in the U.S. - The only country demonstrating greater ignorance is Turkey.

How is that study not evidence that people are preferring religious explanations over scientific ones?

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: brien Your study may impress you but it does nothing to add to the debate of the RR and its religious influence in the US government today.

You said the intelligent design movement wasn't having an effect. Judging from these statistics, I'd have to say you are wrong concerning that particular aspect of religion in government not being significant.

Aghhhhhhhh Where are your specific statistics to prove this?

It's right there in the chart! Can't you read charts? Haven't you passed a basic math/statistics class?

Here's something specific from the report, special just for you:

(The first number is the percentage who said it was "true", the second the percentage "not sure, and the third the percentage who said it was "false")

Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct. (T) 78% 16% 6% More than half of human genes are identical to those of mice. (T) 32 47 21 Human beings have somewhat less than half of the DNA in common with chimpanzees. (F) 15 48 38 The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. (F) 28 22 51 Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life. (F) 62 2 36 Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. (T) 40 21 39

As you can see, it is the religiously charged statements concerning the origin that is meeting with the disagreement. In the first statement, we have an overwhelming majority saying "True", but once you start asking about apes being related to humans and God and such, it all goes downhill from there.

Edit: You edited something extra into your posts,, so here is my response:

. Show me one law that was created and legislated by the RR. Show me one Judge that has influenced the law in a judicial decision based upon religious benchmarks. This world study is irrelevant to the influence of the RR on the government. This idea of secular influence in the US Government is a weak and overblown paranoid fear raised by people who merely distrust others that may think differently from themselves.

Bush's Faith-Based Initiative.

Jump to: navigation, search The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) is a department under the Office of the President of the United States that was established by President George W. Bush through Executive Order on January 29, 2001, and which represents one of the key domestic policies of Bush's campaign promise of "compassionate conservatism." The initiative seeks to strengthen faith-based and community organizations and expand their capacity to provide federally funded social services, with the idea being that these groups are well-situated to meet the needs of local individuals. The Office was briefly shepherded by Don Willett, an aide from Bush's administration as Governor of Texas. Willett is now a Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas. The first person named as director of the OFBCI was John Dilulio, a Pennsylvania academic with a first-rate reputation in social sciences. Dilulio, a Democrat, was drawn to support George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign because of Bush's support for faith-based entities in Texas. Bush had been the governor most enthusiastic about implementing the provisions of the "Charitable Choice" provisions of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Those provisions allowed "faith-based" entities to compete for government contracts to deliver social services without sacrificing their religious character. For fiscal year 2005, more than $2.1 billion in competitive social service grants were awarded to faith-based organizations. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, the total dollar amount of all grants awarded to FBOs increased by 21 percent (GAO 2006:43[3]). The majority of these grants were distributed through state agencies to local organizations in the form of formula grants (GAO 2006:17[3]).

From wikipedia: White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the organizations that received the largest amounts of grants at one time was the "Teen Challenge" rehabilitation program, which uses evangelical theology and guilt-tripping to treat its patients: Teen Challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like special treatment for religious charities to me- what does it look like to you? Something secular?

[brien]

Quote by: Captain Chaos How is that study not evidence that people are preferring religious explanations over scientific ones?

This may very well be true but how does one make the leap of faith that translates to the government? I see no evidence of religion taking an increased role in government of the US. In fact, I see just the opoposite in recent years with the removal of God from the pledge, the removal of references to God all throughout government buildings. The removal of any hints of Christainity during the Christmas season and the removal of any references to religion in the government schools.

So I am not sure what this study proves except that people accept religion as part of their personal lives.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Brien I see no evidence of religion taking an increased role in government of the US.

Anti gay marriage amendments
Faith based initiatives
Appointing anti-abortion judges

I see just the opoposite in recent years with the removal of God from the pledge, the removal of references to God all throughout government buildings.

What? Other than ordering that idiot judge to remove the 10Cs, what?

The removal of any hints of Christainity during the Christmas season and the removal of any references to religion in the government schools.

Teaching religion in public schools has been forbidden for quite some time.

What statistics can you provide to show that the government is making less references to Christianity now, than 10 years ago?

[Zinkovich]

Brien, if you read the OP you would realize this debate was not about religion's impact on government specifically, but society. He mentions it here:

"But, I resent the influence that religious zealots have on society, and this causes a considerable anger that helps feed this bias. Clearly, I need to work on practicing a degree of initial patience, when I encounter those who are burdened with excessive religious belief."

If there is very large number of people in support of religious ideals, than it is obvious that religion itself has a very large societal impact in one way or another. In some regions where it is the majority, there have been examples of public schools breaching the seperation between religion and education that is supposed to exist in such areas.

Examples of religious support from our government is numerous. One such example was a "religion prison" Jeb Bush started that relied on religion to to keep the prisoners in line and "build good behavior and character".

Here is the prison on the database: Lawtey Correctional Institution -- Fl Dept. of Corrections

So, is religion declining in effect? I don't think so, what with all the spending from government certain religious initiatives get in complete disregard of the seperation of church and state.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Whether or not religious people are, on average, less intelligent (or more intelligent) - and whether or not I perceive them to be that way (true or not) - I should still give individual religious people a chance, before I assign them to the stupid category in my head.

Absolutely.

Abso-effing-lutely.

Give them a chance to prove that they are unintelligent.

[brien]

Quote by: Zinkovich You said the intelligent design movement wasn't having an effect. Judging from these statistics, I'd have to say you are wrong concerning that particular aspect of religion in government not being significant. It's right there in the chart! Can't you read charts? Haven't you passed a basic math/statistics class? Bush's Faith-Based Initiative. From wikipedia: White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems like special treatment for religious charities to me- what does it look like to you? Something secular?

I'd have to say you are wrong concerning that particular aspect of religion in government not being significant.

You said the intelligent design movement wasn't having an effect

I maintain that ID has no significant effect upon the operation of the government schools or in government.

Where in government do you find ID??? The schools are not allowed to teach ID as dogma. Because some are trying to incorporate ID in their school studies, does it make a wave of special interest. Hardly. What is thought by people(as in religious beliefs) and taught in the government schools are two different ideas. Government schools do not teach ID as dogma. In fact they aren't allowed to teach it as dogma. So you can parade out all of the studies you care to but the bottom line is that government schools aren't allowed to teach religious dogma in their classes. It is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Haven't you passed a basic math/statistics class?

Please dispense with the insults because I can hurl the insults with the best of you, or I will simply ignore you.

As you can see, it is the religiously charged statements concerning the origin that is meeting with the disagreement. In the first statement, we have an overwhelming majority saying "True", but once you start asking about apes being related to humans and God and such, it all goes downhill from there.

This study has nothing to do with government. It is merely asking people a question regarding their personal beliefs. I fail to see how this is connected to the US the government.

Seems like special treatment for religious charities to me

As compared to all of the money given to charity?

Why didn't you post the safeguards?

Safeguards on faith-based organizations Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect the concept of separation of church and state They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance. FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services

Here is a link that gives an overview of charity and shows that the overall funding of charity is being cut back by the government.

Charity Navigator - Government Funding for Charities: When it declines, the charities lose twice

There is a 214 billion dollar cut in the budget for charities supported by government between the years of 2005 and 2009.

Here is a link that is NOT wikipedia and sheds more light on the funding of faith based charities:

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: Guidance - Introduction

Introduction The guiding principle behind President Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiative is that faith-based charities should be able to compete on an equal footing for public dollars to provide public services. President Bush believes that the Federal government, within the framework of Constitutional church-state guidelines, should encourage faith-based charities to reach out with compassion to help even more people in need.

snip>

For instance, more than two-thirds of federally-supported residences for the elderly are operated by faith-based organizations. And about one in every six child-care centers is housed in a religious facility. In fact, the Nation's largest "chains" of child-care services are not commercially owned, but rather operated by the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. The number of centers in religious facilities is growing faster than the total number of centers. In addition, religiously affiliated hospitals received more than $45 billion in 1998 from Medicare, Medicaid, and other government funding programs. These statistics show that the use of government money by faith-based organizations is not new.

So how would you fund these charities? Or would you simply pull the plug on them? I don't think SCOTUS has ruled these unconsititutional have they? So how do these orgainizations affect the government operations other than to perform a service and be paid for it? Is there some sort of quid pro quo we aren't aware of here? Do the operators of these services have some influence in the government we don't know about here?

snip>

Is there any money specifically set aside for faith-based organizations? No. While there are small programs like the Compassion Capital Fund that are designed to help faith-based and community groups with the challenges they face, the Federal government does not set aside funds specifically for those groups

So if GWB's Faith based intitiatives are so entwined with government and are unconstitutional, why aren't they held as such by SCOTUS? Well, they aren't, therefore your claim that it is government being influenced by the RR in the Faith Based Grant program is specious but not quite on the mark. Good try though.

When one stops and looks at the situation of government funded charities, a sober look reveals that Faith Based Organizations are some of the US largest care givers. On the surface it appears that government is in bed with religion but when one takes a closer look, it reveals that it is government that has the power to control the charity and not the FBO that controls the government. This, it seems, is not a violation of the 1st Amendment because the SCOTUS would have struck it down a long time ago. Therefore, I fail to see your contention that the Government is influenced by FBO's.