I find it counterintuitive that America, land of religious tolerance, first amendment, etc, would house such a large percentage of fundies, while England, with its established church and whatnot, seems to have a great many broadminded folk. Particularly, Brit Lit (or at least that much that crosses the Atlantic) seems to have a much higher percentage of, well, media openly critical of religion. I’m thinking of Pratchett, Hamilton (in bits), and shows like Red Dwarf. What gives?
::sigh:: Before anyone else has to point this out, “athiest/agnostic” and “broadminded folk” are not equivalent terms.
As the OP demonstrates.
Sua
Neither are “GB” and “England”.
The US has never had a Reformation - no history of overthrowing a religion, and the ambivalence that might inspire.
Oh yeah, the Pope used to speak for God, now the King does. Riiiight… Suuuure… whatever you say, boss…
hh I’m not sure that would make a difference. The Reformation is just as much a part of the US cultural background as the European.
Indeed, it is arguable that the Reformation is what caused the US’ higher rates of religious belief. The colonies were by and large founded by peoples whose religious beliefs derived from the Reformation, and who were seeking a place to follow those beliefs.
Sua
I would argue that the reason religion has flourished in the US is because it’s not part of the government. This was, after all, the reasoning of the founders, and I think history has proven them right: taking religion out of politics is good for religion and politics, which corrupt each other. When politicians cannot claim a religious mandate, they have to stand or fall more on their actual merits as leaders. And when religion doesn’t have to worry about fighting against the state, it is free to concentrate on other things, putting its efforts into things like theology, community biulding, etc. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think this situation has been the predominant one in U.S. history. Aside from relatively minor events of persecution and such, our soceity has had a fairly benign experiece with religion.
GB also has had the European experience of being closely involved with religious wars, many of which led to countless pointless deaths. Europe in general just seems more sick of religion than does the U.S., where it was a fresh new avenue, and developed in a diverse and sometimes isolated society that allowed it to grow without ever turning as violent and contentious. In Europe, there is more of a feeling that religion is exhausting, troublesome, and sometimes unweildy. That’s not to say that there aren’t as many strong believers, but rather that their beliefs play out differently in their society.
It could be argued that the rejection of religion is a broadminded view, since the majority of authority figures and people in general follow a religion. I mean that it’s broadminded in the sense of broadening your mind to reject the majority opinion.
To be clear, calling an opinion broadminded doesn’t mean it’s more likely to be correct, so don’t think I’m arguing that. It’s also broadminded to believe that crop circles are messages from aliens and tin foil hats can protect you from John Ashcroft’s mind rays.
Of course, all rational people know that tin foil is no barrier to Ashcroft’s powerful psychic abilities.
There is an enormous difference between America’s political origins, which involved a bunch of mostly Deist intellectuals devoted to the ideal of democracy legislating a government of religious tolerance, and our social history, which involved a persecuted religious minority attempting to found a nation where they could persecute anyone else who didn’t agree with their beliefs.
From the very beginning, America was all about religion. As each community formed, it became less and less tolerant of religious dissent. The dissenters would then start their own community, where everyone would be welcomed until the next schism. Early American history is full of cruel and unusual punishments for religious offences, including such punishments as the stocks and the pillory, cutting off of ears and noses, and the wearing of the infamous “scarlet letter” for adultery.
The original calls for religious freedom came because of the persecution faced by Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, and others who didn’t tow the religious party line. It is only because the founders had the foresight to make religious freedom a cornerstone of the Constitution that the U.S. has avoided institutionalized bigotry and persecution. Even though religion is not officially a part of the government, the American people have overwhelmingly strong religious beliefs, which can manifest in both the formation of new religions, which flourish here, and in extremist beliefs.
Revtim, “Broadminded” means
1 : tolerant of varied views
2 : inclined to condone minor departures from conventional behavior
You are not “broadminded” if you believe that crop circles are signs from aliens. You are “broadminded” if you believe that crop circles are signs from aliens and you don’t get pissy at people who think crop circles are pranks.
As per the OP, an atheist/agnostic is broadminded if they are tolerant of people who believe in a diety. “[M]edia openly critical of religion,” noted in the OP, is pretty much by definition not-broadminded. Whether it is correct is a different question.
Sua
I’ve got to say that if the Massachusetts Bay Colony was any test, those colonists weren’t seeking a place to “follow those beliefs” only. They were also looking for a place to impose those beliefs on one and all. Religious refugees from Mass settled RI, Conn and NH and maybe VT.
—Even though religion is not officially a part of the government, the American people have overwhelmingly strong religious beliefs, which can manifest in both the formation of new religions, which flourish here, and in extremist beliefs.—
Yes, and I was arguing the further point that our government’s SOCAS principle helps religions more than not channel their efforts into society, not the government. Now, that can be just as dangerous, but the government’s general impartiality has provided an important check.
Hypotheses:
-
Excessive entanglement of the government and religion endangers both.
So: Less governmental involvement in US religion = (paradoxically) Greater US religion -
The US is a singular puzzle among advanced industrialized economies. (I like this one: we don’t need to limit the comparison to Britain.)
-
Let’s not forget the Evangelical movement of the early 1800s, when discussing religion in the US.
-
The up close and personal disaster of 1939 - 1945 made Europeans more cynical about the Christian Deity.
-
French anti-clerical attitudes had more influence on countries that were geographically proximate.
-
Democratic socialism has stronger roots in Europe. This strand of lefty thinking has always been uneasy with religion, (in contrast with other strands of lefty thinking).
-
“I dunno, I guess we’re just more cynical”, said one Brit I knew.
I buy most of those, though I have no idea how we’d go out proving whether most of them had a major effect on things.
I definately think 2 is most of note: the U.S. certainly is (at least for the industrialized West) pretty singular as far as its high religiosity.
Religion was a rather minor part of life in the American South prior to the early-middle part of the 19th century. So I don’t think it can be chalked up to the nature of our founding. The evangelical conversion of the American South, the current stronghold of the devoutly religious in America, occured due to a combination of factors. Namely among them were hard-working traveling evangelists who were able to cover alot of ground, and most importantly their ability to emphasize or de-emphasize certain elements of Protestant Christianity to appeal to slaveowners. (These points are available in a study that I believe was called On the Cross, I might find the book in my closet somewhere.)
I suspect that religion became a point of pride that people associated with their geographical region. It may have remained strong in the South because of the lingering resentment over Reconstruction. In a broader sense, some Christians do the same thing now, differentiating themselves from secular Europe. We’ve all encountered these attitudes among the religious, I suppose the question is whether this plays a part in perpetuating religion beyond it’s lifespan. Some people I suspect stick to religion for such reasons as these, pride in one’s religious heritage and so forth.
SuaSponte, generally, one has to be tolerant of varied views to even consider atheism in the first place, since it is not the most popular view.
Media that is critical of religion is being tolerant of the minority view that religion can be criticized, and hence can be considered broadminded.
If the particular media is goes beyond being critical, and is clearly is not open to the idea that religion is correct, then they may be considered intolerant to varied views and hence not broadminded. Simply being critical of religion, however, makes that particular media broadminded, IMHO.
Well, the premise of the OP is the GB is an atheistic place, so agnosticism/atheism would be the majority view there.
Again, the OP was talking about the media in GB.
Did you hurt yourself twisting to come up with that one? - “People who do not tolerate a different point of view (i.e. are not broad-minded) are in the minority, and since they take a different point of view, they are broad-minded.”
You still misunderstand the word.
Sua
No, I understand the word perfectly. You misunderstand my point of view, or simply reject it.
Where did you get that quote, “People who do not tolerate a different point of view (i.e. are not broad-minded) are in the minority, and since they take a different point of view, they are broad-minded.” Is that some kind of twisted interpretation of what I said? I never thought the minority in GB or the US didn’t tolerate different points of view, and I don’t see how I might have implied it.
The OP never never said nor implied GB has a majority of atheists, it only said there are more than in the US. That may be your 1st misunderstanding.
Let’s try this again.
- The majority view and hence the most accepted view is theism.
- To be critical and to doubt theism is hence a different, some might say varied, view.
- Atheism/agnosticism is critical of theism.
- Hence, media that tolerates atheism (a different point of view), is tolerant of at least one varied view.
- If the media is also tolerant of other views (such as theism), then it can be said that that media is tolerant of varied views.
- Being tolerant of varied views is the 1st definition of “broad-minded” you so kindly provided.
Don’t tell me I don’t understand a word simply because you disagree with my point of view.
I agree this may be a factor, separation of religious institution and state is called SECULARISM, it should insure that the basis of morality be non-religious. However Secularism is under constant threat, things like ‘god’ in the constitution or leaders frequently referring to this or that ‘under god’ and so on reveal the way in which a state can serve a specific religion over others, even in a secular country like the US or Australia. Allowing leaders to express their religious belief through law is dangerous. Issues like Abortion and Euthanasia require very careful consideration, free from the prejudices of specific religious beliefs that are in practical terms a departure from reality.
PS~ Red Dwarf goes off! One of my favourite cult comedies
Actually, God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, nor does there appear to be any reference to God in the Constitution of Australia.
State constitutions in the U.S. do generally contain some reference to a deity.
From my personal experience, I would say the US is singular among western developed countries not simply for its high levels of religious adherence but for faith, idealism, lack of cynicism (some Europeans might say “naivety”) generally. Compared with most other parts of the Western world, Americans exhibit higher levels of :
- voluntarism
- charitable giving
- belief in self-improvement
- overt patriotism
- receptiveness to politicians who cry
- virulence about moral issues (abortion, death penalty)
- virulence about symbolic issues (church-and-state, guns)
My explanation would be that the US is less “elite-led” than most other western societies, a result of the decentralized, limited-govt, rights based political constitution. Plus maybe immigrant/frontier experiences play a part. Cultured intellectuals (remember religious belief is less common among people of higher educational levels) can’t stamp their preferences and ethos onto society as effectively as in Europe.