SINCE the 1960s, cultural secularization has increasingly influenced the lifestyle decisions of young Americans. Personal choices involving sexual activity and substance use, which in previous generations would have been condemned for religious and moral reasons, are now glorified as symbols of empowerment. From their preteen years on, young people are bombarded with messages from reality television, magazines and the Internet encouraging them to emulate the questionable behavior of role models like Miley Cyrus and Lindsay Lohan.
Young people’s rejection of conservative behavior is easy to understand. It is much easier to adopt patterns of behavior which promote self-gratification and the removal of inhibitions than it is to subscribe to a lifestyle which emphasizes restraint. So why is it that a large contingent of University students resists the temptations of secular culture?
Students involved in religious organizations such as Agape, the Chabad Jewish Heritage Student Association and the Muslim Students Association appear more likely to forgo involvement in some of the riskier activities condoned by modern U.S. culture. These religious organizations provide a vital service to the University community by giving students a social outlet in which they can express their faith and live truly alternative lifestyles.
Religious organizations focused on helping young people grow their faith are more important than ever given the declining levels of religious affiliation among the U.S. population. This trend sparked a large amount of debate in 2009 when Newsweek ran a cover article titled “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.”
In the article, then Newsweek editor Jon Meacham highlighted the results of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey which, according to Duquesne University School law professor and Huffington Post writer Bruce Ledewitz, “showed a rapid increase in secularization in America, doubling since 1990 and a drop in all kinds affiliation.”
Moreover, a study by Daniel Abrams and Haley Yaple of Northwestern University and Richard Wiener of the University of Arizona has shown that this trend exists across the globe. In some countries, particularly Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Switzerland, the study indicated that religion is dying out.
Why does religion matter? According to Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, studies have proven that religious practice “leads to a reduction in the incidence of domestic abuse, crime, substance abuse, and addiction.” Fagan also asserts that those who are involved in religion are more likely to experience increased “physical and mental health, longevity and education attainment.” Fagan goes on to support those claims by citing a variety of studies endorsed by well-respected institutions including the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, the American Journal of Sociology and numerous researchers at well-respected universities.
Despite the decline in national faith, the University has a robust group of student organizations devoted to helping young people practice and explore their religious beliefs. The University currently lists 58 contracted independent organizations which are categorized as “Religious/Spiritual.” The majority of these organizations are designed to educate students and provide a forum for religious participation. This benefits the University and the community at large by keeping students engaged in their faiths and preserving the traditions and values which religion encourages among its followers.
Religious organizations’ ability to grow and flourish despite the advance of secular culture and the best efforts of powerful institutions to limit their freedom is impressive. As recently as 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that the University was required to provide equal protection for all groups and could not deny funding to a student publication based on religious affiliation. This ruling proved important for the protection of religious groups, and it also demonstrates the threats posed to religion by groups focused on removing faith from public life.
While the evidence suggests that U.S. culture is trending toward secularization, which does not mean citizens should accept the diminished role of religion as a fait accompli. Religion provides both a sense of community and shared cultural values to members of society. At the University, religious associations play an active part in many students’ lives. Students’ four years at the University should serve as a time to both grow their academic knowledge and explore their faith.
Ginny Robinson’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at g.robinson@cavalierdaily.com.
Someone didn’t do much research. Teen pregnancy rates are highest in the USA’s most religious states, places like Alabama and Mississippi.
The entire article is running under the initial assumption that religion makes people behave well and irreligion makes people behave poorly. Let’s do a bit of a global analysis of that presumption. Here are some of the world’s most religious states:
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Yemen
Iran
Iraq
Qatar
Egypt
And the least religious:
Estonia
Iceland
Denmark
Finnland
Sweden
Norway
Czech Republic
Where would you prefer to live?
Finally, the article talks about “preserving the traditions and values which religion encourages among its followers.” Those traditions and values are exactly what we secular humanists are trying to eliminate. Things like infant genital cutting (on both genders) and institutional sexism. To be frank, it’s always a bit of a surprise seeing someone in the Millenial generation come to the defense of these cultural bastions.
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
21 
4
Tobias, the teen pregnancy rate is also very high at extreme left/hateful towards religion UVA. The difference between here and Alabama? The babies in Alabama survive, are allowed to live, and are born. Many abortions, and many abortion complications, are simply never reported (see: Dr. Gosnell in Philly, Chicago Tribune investigation). A Grand Canyon sized hole in your data. Do you really, honesty, want to compare teen pregnancy, STD, child neglect, maternal mortality, and abortion rates in DC and Utah? Are you kidding me? LOL
You may also want to check the breast cancer and cervical cancer rates between the countries you listed. Life is full of yings and yangs. Lowest maternal mortality rate in the world? Ireland.
As for the cutting of genitals, isn’t it the new craze in California to cut the genitals completely off kids who somehow “decide” they were born the wrong gender – and pretend you can be retrofitted with genitals from a gender they are not?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
1
You are so very blatantly wrong on so many levels, I don’t quite know where to begin. For starters, your offering forth of Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus is laughable. These two pop stars have absolutely nothing to do with secular humanism and atheism, and both of these stars engaging in the activities which you condemn are very likely christians themselves. But then again, if you had cited the true heroes of the secular humanist movement, such as Bertrand Russel, Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett, your argument would have fallen even faster apart, given the sublimely erudite personal character of these humans.
Next comes with your association between the rejection of religion and the rejection of human morality, thereby gravely insulting every nonbeliever: “It is much easier to adopt patterns of behavior which promote self-gratification and the removal of inhibitions than it is to subscribe to a lifestyle which emphasizes restraint.” I am an atheist and I believe that I lead a very moral life. Just because I see no reason to worship god does not mean that I have descended into a life of self-gratification and lechery. Your implication that atheism entails the elevation of the self to the position many reserve for god is insulting. Some of the most charitable people in the world are nonbelievers, such as Bill Gates, and the absence of god in their lives does not make them selfish, horrible humans. Instead, they are able to justify their morality through secular means, such as the elimination of human suffering, instead of the master-slave mentality that christianity so condones. If you want to write about people living self-gratified, selfish lives, write about the Pope in the Vatican next time.
“Students involved in religious organizations such as Agape, the Chabad Jewish Heritage Student Association and the Muslim Students Association appear more likely to forgo involvement in some of the riskier activities condoned by modern U.S. culture. These religious organizations provide a vital service to the University community by giving students a social outlet in which they can express their faith and live truly alternative lifestyles.” I have several problems with this passage as well. If I assume correctly that one of the main “risky activities” students in these unions forgo is sexual intercourse, then this further confirms your childish mentality. The idea that sex is somehow evil and should be abstained from by the righteous is a ludicrous idea, which when followed, is directly responsible for much human misery. For example, sexual repression in the Catholic church creates priests with the sexual maturity of 13 year-olds. To have old men in positions of power with no legitimate outlet for their sexual expression directly causes the rapes for which the Catholic church is so infamous. You may also want to include those disgusting statistics the next time you discuss religion in a public forum.
As Tobias Gendrick before me said, the most secular nations in the world (Scandinavia, Northwestern Europe, for the most part) are also the most peaceful and socially just nations in the world. This is not a coincidence. Religion has historically been, and continues to be, the greatest threat to social justice and progress throughout the world today. I would like to write more, but in all honesty, reading your article is too painful, as it stands there as a blatant reminder of how stone age beliefs can persist in the 21st century, even at the University of Virginia.
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
24 
4
All of this anti-religious fervor proved by example is more than a little off putting.
@Tobias
AL & MS have a lot of teen pregnancies and religious people, therefore religion is amoral/ineffective/bad. A similarly absurd argument would replace the words ‘religious’ with ‘black’ in that sentence.
Harshly comparing a highly selective group of Muslim majority countries with a homogeneous group of Northern European ones tells us little about religion.
I will not speak to the cultural (arguably non-religious) and abhorrent practice of female circumcision. However, medically speaking, male circumcision is believed to have no particular benefits or detriments.
@Erik
I fail to understand the fervor you bring to the table in your arguing style. I am not trying to be facetious or rude. I, as a person of faith, am truly interested in what seems to be a religious fervor for no religion. I will however question your implied assault on those who choose to be abstinent (just as you questioned Ginny’s implied assault on promiscuity). What is wrong with the promotion of restraint, a high level of respect for sex, and the benefits of strong communities that believe what you believe?
Since a large part of this focused on sex, the sexes, and the (un)intentional consequences of sex, I will leave you with this Jewish thought on the sexes. Jews believe that Eve (i.e. woman) was created from the rib of the first man, Adam. Spiritually, that means that a man’s soul is not complete without a devoted companion for life. I think this is a very deep notion of love and partnership that everyone can appreciate.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
3 
4
Anybody wanna compare STD, violent crime, child neglect, and maternal mortality rates in DC and Detroit as compared to Iowa and Utah? How about Charlottesville vs. Mennonite country while we’re at it? Or we can simply compare the national rates in 1960 vs. 1980. Simple, no?
It doesn’t take much to get these atheist stoners in academia frothing like mad anyway. Next thing you know they’ll be claiming that MLK never really cared or talked about God, and the slavery abolitionists believed in “free love.”
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
3
Oh, and the United States was founded by very religious people, and became the world’s most powerful and prosperous country with the largest economy in the world while it was very religious. Now that it has become less so, take a look around at how we are doing now. Seems to me I’ve been reading lately about a lot of people cheering “genital cutting” of children because the “transgender” thing is really trendy right now. That gets a pass, huh?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
3
Sean, if you want to make an appeal to the glorious founding fathers and the principles that made this nation great, then I suggest that you actually read some of their writings. If you would do this, you would find that while not completely secular, the founding fathers did very much support a strong separation between church and state. The fact that the American colonies had free range to expand West to take over an entire continent, for the most part free from the wars of Europe, had nothing to do with our embrace of religion. Furthermore, the assumption that America was more religious “back in the good old days” may very well be false. Indeed, more people may have been religious in their everyday lives, but I genuinely believe that politics have become much more religious in the past decades,thanks to the christian right. And again, if you want to make judgments on faith and nonfaith just by the prosperity of the nations which practice them, please look again at Northern and Western Europe, compared with the most religious nations in the world. I’m sure you know in which nations you’d prefer to live.
“Anybody wanna compare STD, violent crime, child neglect, and maternal mortality rates in DC and Detroit as compared to Iowa and Utah? How about Charlottesville vs. Mennonite country while we’re at it? Or we can simply compare the national rates in 1960 vs. 1980. Simple, no?” This is completely nonsensical. Religion has never been a deterrent to crime. No matter how much people may like to think so, religion does very little to shape the day-to-day actions of people, and to cite religion as a deterrent to crime simply does not hold up. Crime is caused by poor socioeconomic conditions, coupled with a lack of education. The juxtaposition you present may be better stated as “let’s look at poor, urban, black society, and compare it with middle class, white society.” Well, of course there are going to be differences between the two. This nation has done very little to help lift our most needy out of poverty, and until we do so, you can expect these differences to persist. Furthermore, the demographic which you blame for all these horrible things, the poor, are very likely to be religious, whereas in urban centers the great cause of secularization tends to come from the law-abiding college-educated. Again, these differences have nothing to do with religion. And yet again, if you would glance for but a second at the global statistics, you would find that the nations with the lowest numbers of STDs, violent crime, child neglect, and maternal mortality rates are the nations which educate their populace the best. This education without fail produces secularization, lifting as it does the veil from the peoples’ eyes. Finally, I do realize the MLK was extremely religious. That is a major critique of mine against him, but it does not change that he accomplished great things.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
1 
4
@Erik
Your responses are very well thought out and detailed, but I am still confused by some of your conflicting logic. You refute Sean’s examples of inner city blacks by claiming that socio-economics is the primary factor in crime rates. (I would argue that value systems and personal ethics play at least as big a role.) Yet you still maintain that economically well to do Europe is ‘better’ than the economically poor Muslim majority countries, and the reason is because they are not religious. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. (You also skipped my earlier critique…)
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Erik, perhaps you could share with us all what your take is on us all being endowed by our “Creator,” and our “right to Life?” What’s with those caps? What Creator? The Spaghetti Monster?? Was abortion legal in 1776? 1781? Maybe you could show us where they were thinking it was a great idea.. Your classic, endless error is in trying to fool people into thinking that since the founders endeavored to make no particular denomination the favored one in the US government, then that means that they wanted religion to vanish from government. It will always be wrong.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
@Joel
Sorry for skipping your response, but you were rather reasonable, and I thought it was more important to respond to Sean, who seems to be completely off. I am not arguing that just because certain prosperous nations are rejecting faith is the only reason they are successful. To follow that logic to its conclusion would be an argumentum ad verecundiam, which, of course, holds no water in any serious discourse. As for my conflicting logic, your assumption that I believe Europe to be “better” than other nations is a far too binary appraisal, with no room for ambiguity and nuance. I believe, and I apologize if I did not lucidly convey this, that the greatest success of progressive nations is the education of their people. This education creates better socioeconomic conditions for the populace, and as a result, a decline in everything from crime, to STDs, teen pregnancy, and domestic violence is seen. You can interpret these increases in living conditions to constitute grounds for claiming the international social superiority of some nations if you wish, but at no point do I actually say this. The decline of religiosity in progressive nations is a symptom of education and social justice. Therefore, I do not find your interpretation of my position as “Europe [being] ‘better’ than the economically poor Muslim majority countries, and the reason is because they are not religious. ” to be correct. Again, I apologize if I did not elaborate enough to make this perfectly clear from the start.
As for your initial critique:
I am passionate about secular humanism because I believe that it, along with education and socioeconomic justice for all (note that I do not consider these to be discrete entities. I instead see these entities as feeding upon one another) as the greatest way to both eliminate human suffering and elevate the human spirit. Bertrand Russell once wrote:
“Religion, since it has its source in terror, has dignified certain kinds of fear, and made people think them not disgraceful. In this it has done mankind a great disservice: all fear is bad, and ought to be overcome not by fairy tales, but by courage and rational reflection. I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold: surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man’s place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.”
I find this quotation to be an elegant expression of my position, as I believe that the myths of religion only serve to hold us back as a species.
My “implied assault” on those who remain abstinent is just that–implied. At no point do I specifically attack abstinent individuals. I do, however, maintain that the institutionalized abstinence so advocated by the church is a negative thing. If the churches would have their way, children would receive little to no sex education, beyond the fact that sex is a bad thing for which one must wait until marriage. The construction of sex into a taboo forces teens and others into less accepted and safe forms of sexual expression, and if children were simply taught that sex can be a safe, beautiful act which one can share with a significant other (to whom they need not be legally bound for the duration of their life), I can guarantee you that teen pregnancy and STD rates would decline. Going back to our perennial example of Northwestern Europe, these nations have some of the best sexual education in the world, with STD and pregnancy rates to show it. As for your question “What is wrong with the promotion of restraint, a high level of respect for sex, and the benefits of strong communities that believe what you believe?”, I do not necessarily disagree with you here, but I do think that one should not think of sex in terms of “restraint.” Indeed, one should not go about having unprotected intercourse with as many people as is possible, but as long as one practices safe sex with people who are genuinely important to oneself, I see no particular need for harsh sexual restraints. Regarding your parting comment: I do not particularly believe in the monogamous model of sexual interaction which our society tries to uphold. I believe that one can genuinely love multiple human beings, who each fulfill a specific need for the individual. This, however, would take quite some time for me to properly elaborate. If you wish that I explain myself further, however, I would be happy to oblige.
@Sean
Your response holds little semantic value for me. I am genuinely confused by much of your post. I suggest that you actually read texts written by the founding fathers, and then return with something meaningful to say.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
2 
0
Sean –
In which country does the declaration of independence carry any legal weight? I am not sure where you live, but I know it is not the United States, where the constitution is law and where the supreme court’s reading of the constitution is binding. I cannot seem to find the word “creator,” or “God,” or “deity,” etc. in the constitution; the closest reference to any deity seems to be “year of our lord.” In fact, here is the first direct reference to religion in the constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
Note that the text of the first amendment places “no law respecting an establishment of religion” before “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Note that “no law respecting an establishment of religion” even precedes the free speech clause. As a document, the constitution was first written to define our government in secular terms (with the exception of using the Christian calendar), and then amended to explicitly forbid religious laws. I do not think there can be any question that the founders of this nation intended for the government to be secular.
The establishment clauses does not say, “Congress shall pass no law favoring one denomination over another.” It says no laws respecting an establishment of religion, of any sort, regardless of denomination. It is true that this means that no one denomination can be favored — all forms of religion are rejected equally by our constitution.
America has had more than two centuries to amend the constitution to allow the government to be religious, and we have never done so. Nothing prevents the constitution from being amended to say, “The establishment is hereby repealed, and Congress can pass laws requiring people to adhere to a religion,” or perhaps, “…Congress can pass laws conferring special favor to religious people.” We have not done so, and with 40% of America admitting to being agnostic or atheist, I doubt that we ever will.
If you do not like it, you can always move to a country that has not establishment clause. England, for example, has an official state religion: the Church of England; perhaps you could move to the UK. Of course, nobody is *required* to be religious there, so maybe you would prefer Indonesia, where not only are all citizens required by law to be a member of a religion (and only certain religions are approved), but abortion is not legal.
Maybe you should just grow up and accept the fact that America is not a country with a religious government.
– B
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
The Cav Daily censors are again deleting all of my posts longer than a line or two. Classic head in sand lefties who must always run and hide.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
1
“Year of our Lord?” Lord who? Why capitalized? Lord who!? Why do we have chaplains in Congress/military? Have you looked at your money lately?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Erik lives in a some alternate reality. DC and Detroit are paradise while Kuwait and Ireland are crime ridden hell holes full of STD’s and ignorance.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
@Joel
I’m glad that you do seem sincerely interested in understanding where some of this “religious fervor for no religion” originates. I’m not going to spend time trying to convince you that religion is evil or whatever. Hopefully, though, I can explain why an article like this is frustrating.
Many religious people seem to assume that atheists are mad at God or religion. In some cases, that may be true. Plenty of atheists and formerly religious people have had bad experiences with religious institutions, judgmental believers, or emotionally distressing and damaging religious upbringings. Some have suffered real abuse by religious authorities and peers. Of course, to claim that’s the whole story would be a gross oversimplification of the issue. What frustrates me about this article is that it reflects an extremely widespread line of thought that most people accept without even thinking about it: being religious is a Good Thing (TM) and practicing religion makes you a Good Person.
Now, I’m not going to waste time making claims about what your or anyone else’s specific religion officially says about the issue. For example, I know Christian groups would say something along the lines of “Wait, Christians don’t believe that we’re better than others. The Bible says no one is righteous, etc,”. I’m referring to public opinion. Atheists are the least trusted group in America [1]. We’re made out to be hateful boogeymen who are out to get religious people, churches, Christmas, and America, like religious people are some terrorized, oppressed minority. In my experience, atheists tend to be honest, moral people who strongly value human rights, social justice, and rational thinking. We simply don’t find religious claims compelling enough to accept them.
So simply put, it’s upsetting. Like Erik said, it’s insulting. It’s frustrating that many people seem to care more about whether or not you go to church (or in this case, Chi Alpha or Agape) than what you actually do. Many atheists have heard a version of one of this article’s first claims that “It is much easier to adopt patterns of behavior which promote self-gratification and the removal of inhibitions than it is to subscribe to a lifestyle which emphasizes restraint,”. “You just don’t believe in God because you want to do whatever you want,” like atheists aren’t being intellectually honest. I’d wager we’ve all heard that one, some of us from our own parents. Instead, we’re accused of taking the easy way out, since supposedly we really just want to live a life of debauchery. It hurts that people ignore what I say and do and instead think that my lack of belief in their god is a moral failing that defines me as a person. Eventually, that gets annoying.
[1] http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/11/30/ubc-study-explores-distrust-of-atheists-by-believers/
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sean –
It is a reference to a method of counting years, nothing more — setting up a new system of counting years, or referring to “the common era” rather than the more commonly used “the year of our lord” would have created problems in running the country. The fact that you latch onto it is a sign of just how desperate you are to “prove” that America’s founders intended to have a religious government. How do you reconcile that with the establishment clause, which unambiguously says “no” to a religious government?
Yes, there are religious chaplains in the military; this is a compromise on the establishment clause that is politically difficult to challenge. However, the existence of chaplains in the military does not demonstrate that we live under a religious government. Not only are there chaplains for other, non-Christian religions, there are also secular counselors available for soldiers who prefer no religion.
As for the issue of “In God we Trust” being printed on our money, some of us have been pushing to have that removed — it has no place on the currency of a nation whose bill of rights begins with a prohibition on government-endorsed religion, and there are a lot of Americans who are either atheist/agnostic or polytheist (which raises free exercise clause issues). If anything, the printing of “In God We Truth” is an embarrassment to our nation, and we should be ashamed of it.
You have yet to answer the matter of the constitution, which explicitly and unambiguously forbids religious laws or government in this country.
– B
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Actually, last I checked, DC has a pretty average church attendance rate, and Detroit’s is fairly high. Moreover, the two states that had the highest attendance rates – Mississippi and Alabama – also has amongst the highest STD, teen pregnancy, and abortion rates in the country, while the two with the lowest – Vermont and New Hampshire – had amongst the lowest such rates. I am sure Sean will come up with an ad hominem attack that manages to totally ignore these facts, but they’re there for anyone who wants to do a second of thinking, instead of gut-based reactions.
I’ll admit, as a religious person, I don’t like those numbers at all. It seems far to many “religious” people think faith in God gives them an excuse to not listen to His word. It’s a problem, and those of us who are of faith would be better served by trying to fix it instead of being in denial about it.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
So the year they referred to (1787) proves exactly what Lord they were referring to, and you have failed to get God removed from our money, or have any chaplains fired. Three strikes.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sean –
You sure proved it there! Yup, the fact that they decided to use the same calendar that most of the world, including the most powerful nations at the time, was using definitely shows that they wanted the government to be religious. Yeah, chaplains in the military? Having the word “God” on our money? Proof, all around!
Get real — we have never overturned the establishment clause. Why are you avoiding the issue? The constitution is unambiguous on religion, and you are grasping at anything you can that shows otherwise.
– B
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
It was some other Lord’s birthday in 0 AD? Who? Why would they have said that He was “our Lord?” Simple questions.. No answers. Just denial.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
DC ranks number ONE in the country in chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, AIDS, infant mortality, and is usually around the top FIVE in preterm births and violent crime. If you really think that Utah, Iowa, Amish Country, or the Mennonite community are even remotely close – you are in the same dream world as Erik. The highest Iowa comes in ANY of those is a ranking of 32.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sean, did you even read my response?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
You call my comparisons nonsense because you simply cannot respond to them, Erik. Your forefathers in the atheistic social liberal movement (academia) 1965-1980 have wreaked an unprecedented bloodbath on humanity. Families torn to shreds. Children neglected. Countless millions dead of drug abuse and STD’s such as AIDS. 54 million infants aborted in the US alone. Our preterm birth rate has doubled. Our female breast cancer rate has tripled. Places like Flint, Detroit, and DC used to be the envy of the world. Then you folks took control. Meanwhile, have a look at Cheyenne, Green Bay, or Salt Lake City. While we’re at it lets compare STD rates in England vs Kuwait!
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
I’ve had six posts deleted by the Cav Daily censors, Erik.
That’s how it works with this crew. Never happened with the previous board.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Without the religious people and ideals, abolition and Civil Rights movements never happen. The Darwinists chose Eugenics instead. (see: Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project)
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
@ Joel
Actually, male genital cutting destroys the most responsive sexual receptors men have (literally tens of thousands of nerve receptors are removed)
If Abraham’s god wanted this, I think it’s safe to say we might want to reevaluate all his positions. Omitting all the barbarism religion offers, we’re eventually left with a fairly libertarian set of principles in common with more or less all philosophies: Don’t steal, rape, or murder. This is where secular humanism and religious people have common ground. The deliberate oppression of human sexuality via patriarchy, death sentences, stigma, and genital cutting is solely the domain of religion.
As Jefferson wrote: if a deity exists, it will value reason over blindness.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sean, if you think social Darwinism as implemented by eugenicists is in any way similar(beyond the obvious perversion of natural selection) to Darwin’s theory of evolution, then you are beyond help.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sean –
You are continuing to ignore the fact that, while the constitution does contain the word “lord,” it unambiguously forbids government endorsements of religion. I addressed your point about the phrase “the year of our lord,” without any denial. You, on the other hand, have ignored what I said and ignored the fact that following “the year of our lord” is this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
– B
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Religion is in the constitution the Declaration of Independence, the Congress itself, in the military, and on every dollar in your pocket. Maybe it’s time to grasp reality.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
(1) The declaration of independence carries absolutely no legal weight
(2) The constitution’s treatment of religion deliberately and unambiguously distances the government from religion. What do you think the free exercise clause means? It means that the government cannot prohibit religion, that is all — not that the government should be religious (which the establishment clause forbids). The approach is hands-off — no religion in government and no interference with religion by the government.
(3) The military is not fighting for a religious cause. The best you can come up with is that there are religious chaplains in the military — who work side by side with secular counselors. The military understands and respects the right of soldiers to be free from religion.
(4) Yes, our money says “God,” and that is one of the most embarrassing aspects of the United States. Not only is it a clear violation of the establishment clause, it is also an insult to the various atheists and polytheists in this country, as well as to the various Jews, Christians and Muslims who understand how important the establishment clause is. How would you like it if our money said, “In the gods we trust?”
At the end of the day, the intention of the founders of this nation was to have a secular government, which was in no way involved with religion. This has been affirmed over and over by the courts, despite the efforts of certain political groups to distract everyone from the establishment clause. You live in a fantasy world where the fact that our money violates the constitution is proof that the constitution is wrong (never mind that the constitution is the only legal document that empowers our government to create the very money you point to).
As I said before, the establishment clause is not universal, and you are free to leave this country and move to a country where the government demands that the citizens adhere to a religion.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Social Darwinism was the foundational philosophy of the Eugenics movement, as it was for Nazism. Your denial reflex goes deep into history also, Erik.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
1
You rock B!
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Your embarrassment has you pretty mad, B. I never once suggested that we should have anything other than a secular government – or indeed that we should have a state religion. I think it’s fine the way it is. What you cannot grasp is that the Judeo-Christian RELIGIOUS tradition is exactly what our government and our laws were and are based on. I was going to avoid mentioning the Christmas Tree in front of the White House and the book that every president and legislator has a hand on when they take their Oath of Office, but I’ll throw it in now. Strike four. Strike five. That you live in denial of reality (common for the far left) does not effect anything in our government.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
1
Sean –
You keep avoiding the issue of the establishment clause, which clearly and unambiguously states that the US government cannot officially endorse religions. When an atheist is sworn into office, an alternative oath that does not involve a bible is used (ideally, all politicians would use this oath). Christmas trees on the white house lawn are not proof of anything other than that the president, who lives in the white house, is a Christian (if the president were not Christian there would be absolutely no excusing a Christmas tree on the white house lawn).
As for this country’s legal system, sure, there are some aspects that appear to have been borrowed from Christianity — and then there are those aspects that were not. Jury trials, for example, have no basis in Christian tradition. Neither does freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to counsel, and numerous other fundamental rights and government restrictions defined by the constitution.
Really though, if you think that we should never have anything other than a secular government, what difference does it make if some aspect of the law is connected to or derived from the philosophy taught by a particular religion? The government is secular; the fact that some idea originated in a religion should be irrelevant, and the only thing that should matter is whether or not the idea is worthwhile and best serves the people being governed. It should not make any difference if Christians, Wiccans, Wotan worshippers, Muslims, or South American Shamans developed the idea if it is an idea that would benefit the people of this country.
You claim that you think our government should be secular…then immediately point to the fact that our money has the word “god” printed on it. What is your point? That our government should be secular…but that it should still official endorse religion? That it is not an embarrassment for a country founded on a principle of secular government to have as many government endorsements of religion as this country has? What exactly are you arguing?
– B
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Well, the idea that the foundations of our government and law (“Creator,” “Lord,” bibles beneath every president’s hand – no exceptions) may or may not be the best one in your opinion. But it is still reality. Polygamy and gay marriage are good examples. Legal in other countries. Not here. To deny that the Judeo-Christian religion was involved in the founding of our system of government, and remains therein, is to bury your head in the sand. So be it. We both support secular government, but I know, support and acknowledge the amount of religious foundation and current involvement in our government that religion plays. You pretend it’s not there, then rail against it at the same time.
You didn’t have much luck finding that word “privacy” in the constitution – did you?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
So tell me, which religion were jury trials derived from? How about the right to counsel? Show me the religious basis for these things.
I did not deny that there is religion in our government, I said that it is not supposed to be there and that it is an embarrassment for it to be there. A secular government is not supposed to be swearing politicians using religious texts of any sort or printing “in god we trust” on its money.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
I’m glad that we can at least agree on reality. That is, that what is there is there. I came up with 5 examples. There are more. The Cav Daily simply deletes many of my more detailed posts. Nothing I can do about censors and their juvenile, narcissistic hobbies. Religion in government has been a bad thing in many cases, but a cursory look at modern North Korea, Cuba, and Albania from 1945 to 1995 should provide plenty of evidence that the radical alterative is not the ideal either.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sean, I’ve found that links tend to send posts to “moderation land”. You might try encoding your link, like replacing “/” with “,” and then including a note to the reader to do the reverse to get the actual address.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
In the Daily Progress comments, they routinely kick out h e double hockey sticks, which makes theological discussions difficult. The pre-screening is done by a program, so don’t get upset with the automation.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Poe’s law seems applicable:
“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0